Friday afternoon and my brains gone numb again.

I've a client whose daughter and partner and baby were made homeless. They moved in at the beginning of May whilst they looked for other accommodation, but no luck so far.

Daughter visited local district council to make homeless application, and provided full details of where staying.

Local council have just found out that they're staying at client's house and are applying full NDD and have also raised an overpayment.

So three questions really -

How long before a property is considered their normal home, and so a NDD applies? Any caselaw gratefully recieved.

Are benefits/tax credits for child taken into account as income?

Also could it be argued that material fact was disclosed to relevent office, and so overpayment not recoverable - as District council were told that daughter staying there, so official error if did not act?? Client did not expect it to affect benefit as stay only temporary.

Ta

JK

Hi
I would suggest -they would be considered as non-dependants if it was their only or main residence, as they are homeless this would seem reasonable to treat them as living there.
Yes all income is taken into account when calculating the non-dep income /charge
The daughter is not the HB claimant therefore I would not hold much hope of that argument suceeding. The Mother should have notified her HB dept when they moved in !

Alan

benefits and tax credits are not taken into account as income for a non-dep unless they are also in full time work. In which case, all income counts except that which is specifically disregarded. See page 206 of your CPAG handbook for non-dep rules (which deals with most of your questions).

The question of the overpayment would depend on whether or not a non-dep deduction actually applied and if the stay was temporary (although as mentioned, the non-dep should have a normal home elsewhere. Disclosure to the housing section by the non-dep will almost certainly not amount to a disclosure to the benefit department by the claimant so i doubt the official error argument will hold water.

If the LA are applying the full NDD then you should point them in the direction of Ch/48/2006 wherein the Commissioner states it is wrong to automatically apply the highest rate of NDD without making enquiries as to the actual income of the NDs.....

A non dep is someone who normally resides with the claimant, not someone who is staying with the claimant while waiting to be rehoused.

I dont think that this person is a non dependant in these circumstances For authority see CIS/14850/1996 and CSIS/100/1993

Even if the person were a non dep, apart from CH/48/2006, you should also look at CH/2324/2003 because the LA also need evidence that the nion dep is working before applying anything other then the lower(non working) deduction

In CIS/14850/1996 the so called non dep did not have a normal home elsewhere and was considered not to be normally residing anywhere. She had been living with the claimant for some 8 months, but I would arguue that the intentions of the parties should usually be given more weight than merely how long the situation had existed.