Further to my previous posting the same LA has also adopted this "policy".

Claimant notifies that non-dep has vacated and gives leaving date and forwarding address.

LA then writes to the CTAX payer of the forwarding address asking them to sign a delcaration that the non-dep is now resident with them and return the declaration within 7 days.

If the CTAX payer never returns this declaration the non-dep charge remains on the claim.

If the CTAX payer returns the declaration later than the 7 day deadline the non-dep charge is only removed from the Monday following the date of receipt of the declaration, even though the claimant may have notified of the change of circs within the one calendar month time limit.

This is obviously challengable but I'm not sure which route to take, JR or normal appeals process?

As a non dep deduction affects the amount of HB payable then this would be a supersession decision (based on the claimant’s application for supersession) leading to a new outcome decision. If the LA refuses to remove the NDD then it has to issue a new outcome decision (even though the actual outcome might be the same) based on a refusal to supersede (and there is case law on this), or to supersede from a later date in the second scenario you quote.

Thus any challenge should be brought by way of statutory appeal. Where there is a statutory right of appeal permission to bring JR proceedings may be given but only in rare and exceptional circumstances (R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police ex parte Calveley (CA) 1986), amongst others.

Outrageous!!

might be worth a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

I'm thinking I will make a complaint as well as appeal the decision. A meeting with the HB manager may be a good idea as well!!