|
For both HB and IS housing costs, the home for which help is claimed must be in respect of the dwelling occupied as the home. Both sets of rules provide for circumstances in which someone can be treated as occupying more than home, but I am unsure if this applies where one is rented and the other is owned. In the CPAG handbook, the rules are phrased in the context of both homes being either rented or owned, but I think they apply either way because the regs are only couched in terms of more than dwelling. If someone knows different please say as I’m unsure on this point.
For the circumstances in which a claimant can be treated as occupying more than one dwelling for IS purposes, see page 801 of the current CPAG handbook and schedule 3 para 6 IS regs. From the situation you describe, it doesn’t seem as though any of the exceptions will apply to your client’s case.
For HB, the rules for those who have more than one dwelling are covered by reg 7(6) HB regs, which are covered on page 187 of the CPAG handbook and, again, none of them seem applicable to the situation you describe.
Assuming that I am correct, that means a decision maker (DM) will have to choose which home your client ‘normally’ occupies. This might not be that straightforward and could be a source of significant difficulty. If a DM concludes that the ‘dwelling normally occupied as the home' is the mortgaged property no HB would payable, and vice-versa. It would be bizarre (but not unexpected) if each DM (DWP and LA) arrived at opposite conclusions.
This doesn’t really apply if both homes cannot be paid for at the same time, but for the sake of completeness, IS can be paid for a temporary absence of up to 52 weeks if the claimant is not likely to be away for longer than this and a number of other conditions apply. The most relevant conditions is that the claimant has to live away from their usual home as a condition of bail (schedule 3 para13(11)(c)(i) IS regs). However, in order to make use of this para, the ‘dwelling normally occupied as the home’ must be the temporary accommodation (which I think is unlikely (see above)) and the client would have to fit into the circumstances for IS in which two homes can be occupied.
In summary, it seems that your client would be treated as only occupying one home. If it is the owned property, the client would have to meet the conditions in reg 7(6) HB regs (two homes) in order to get HB. If it is the rented property, she would have to meet the conditions in schedule 3 paras 6 (two homes) and 13 (temp absence) IS regs to get ISMI (the temporary absence rules are useless if the home is not normally occupied as the dwelling).
I hope that makes sense – and that I’ve got it right. A second opinion would be useful.
|
