Hi... Client is a single mother with 2 kids and HB pay full 2bed LHA rate.
Kids are removed by Social Services in an interim temporary order with further court case pending, she may get the kids back.

HB say they will reduce the LHA rate to a one bed because the kids are not there. This will cause rent arrears and she will be evicted.

Is there anything in the HB regs or the LHA rates which I can use to keep the rent at the 2 bedroom rate at least until the date of the family court hearing.

Given the mess that LHA has become in the context of who counts as an "occupier", I suspect almost any argument is worth trying.

In this case, it may well be worth arguing that the termporary removal is nothing more than temporary absence until determined otherwise AND that, in any case, your client's dwelling remains occupied by the children as the normal home for HB purposes (per HBR 7). CTB is trickier, because the occupancy rules are different. But, I suppose you could cite CTBR 2(2) which tries to make occupancy under the CTBRs mean the same as under HBR 7. I'm not sure this quite works, but I can't come up with anything better at this time.

A sensible argument may well find favour with a sympathetic FtT. As for the Upper Tribunal? Who knows....

If the above doesn't succeed (or as an alternative) she should claim a DHP. I have come across cases where the LHA was immediately reduced because a family member left the home (one of the pernicious effects of the LHA rules, in my opinion, as the tenancy still exists for x months & the claimant has either topay or be evicted) & a DHP was paid until the end of the tenancy.

I agree with Kevin. I think you might want to draw the distinction between the term "occupiers" in reg 13D for the purposes of LHA and the provisions in reg 21 for establishing whether the children form part of the household (for the income and allowances assessment).

They are different and it is possible to make decisions that might otherwise appear contradictory.