What constitutes "moving in" and "occupying" a property for HB purposes?

I seem to remember that in order to claim HB on a new home (assuming no other rent liabiltiy exists, and no two homes problem), you had to sleep at the property to be counted as living there. I thought sleeping was the big factor - even if you spent most of the day elsewhere, if you slept there, you were treated as occupying it.

However, i thought i saw something recently that said different, but cannot remember where. I have checked this thread and the briefcase section. I have had a look at reg 5 (specifically sub para's 6 and 7) in Findlay, but am none the wiser.

Any thoughts?

You might look at CH/2521/2002 which discusses occupation.

"1. This appeal, brought by the local authority with leave of the tribunal chairman, succeeds. The tribunal erred in law in finding that the claimant occupied 197 R Gardens as his home between 22 1 01 when the tenancy began and the time he began to spend some nights, and further for the rest of the period as explained below. I set its decision aside and, under paragraph 8(4) and (5)(b) of Schedule 7 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, substitute my own decision to the effect that the claimant cannot be treated as occupying 197 R Gardens as his home from 22 1 01 to 27 5 01. There has therefore been an overpayment of housing benefit (HB) to the claimant for that period (both dates included) of £886.96, which is recoverable from him. "

CH/2201/2002 also discusses this peripherally, they're both on our CD-Rom.

in addition to the excellent ferret cd ....

CH/2521/2002 is also @ http://www.hbinfo.org/menu2/comdecs/ch_2521_2002.shtml

and CH/2201/2002 @ http://www.hbinfo.org/menu2/comdecs/ch_2201_2002.shtml

Disacussion from old forum may be of interest.
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum/housing/654.html

Reside means “to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one’s settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place” (Oxford English Dictionary)

In many circumstances it will be easy and determine where a person resides. However, in some cases it will not be so straightforward. It is clear that the courts have interpreted residence to mean a permanent and not merely temporary place of abode, a place where an individual eats and sleeps or where members of the family eat and sleep (see for example Viscount Sumner in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Lysaght <1928> A.C. 234, 243). In other words, it is a place which can properly be regarded as an individual’s home.

Individuals are often away from home for a variety of reasons; a temporary absence, for example a holiday, should not mean that the individual no longer resides at an address. It is important to consider a number of factors when determining the residence of an applicant.

In Macrae v. Macrae <1949> P. 397 where the issue was whether justices had jurisdiction under the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts 1895 to 1925, Somerville, L.J. said at p. 403
"Ordinary residence can be changed in a day. A man is ordinarily resident in one place up till a particular day: he then cuts the connection he has with that place - in this case he left his wife, in another case he might have disposed of his house or anyhow left it and made arrangements to make his home somewhere else. Where there are indications that the place to which he moves is the place which he intends to make his home for at any rate an indefinite period, then as from that date in my opinion he is ordinarily resident at the place to which he has gone."

Time

The length of time a person has spent at a particular address is important but is only one factor to consider amongst many. In Bradford City Metropolitan Council v Anderton (<1991> The Times 15 February), a Community Charge decision, Mr Justice Hutchinson declared that the local valuation tribunal had been wrong to concentrate exclusively on time.

Intent

Intent may be an important factor in some cases. For example, an applicant may have resided in a travel authority area and sold that property. They may have bought a property in another travel authority and moved in on a particular date. Clearly in these circumstances, the applicant’s intention is to make their home at the new travel authority area and should be deemed to reside in that travel authority even though they may have moved in that day.

Hope this helps

Thanks for all your help.

Having read all of the itesm recommended to me, for future reference, I would recommend reading CH/2521/2002. It cleared up a lot of my questions. And it makes it clear that when occupation is in dispute it is an even trickier buisness than I thought!