Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Bedroom tax loophole - hadn’t thought of this one before
There was a successful prayer in the HoC regarding the closing of the loophole re exemptions for certain tenants. Am I correct in thinking that this delays the changes in regulations due on 3 March by virtue of SI 212/2014
help neded please. I have a claimant who has lived in same accomodation throughout the period covered by the loophole, sometime however during the period the claim swapped from the husband over to the wife, no break in time but a break in main claimant, can I argue that they are still protected as both were on the claim throughout the period
tanks in anticipation
from yesterday’s HB bulletin A1/2014 - linked to above -
‘Q7: Entitlement: What happens if the claimant and partner have swapped over at some point during the seventeen years - they both remain in the property for the entire period and there is no gap between the ending of one and starting of the other?
Transitional protection will apply. This means that where a claimant and partner swapped claim roles, and all other conditions of entitlement are met they will satisfy the criteria.’
cheers ros
many thanks, I spoke to my LA today 17 02 14 . who blithely said that unless my clients partner has died thee is no exemption, I asked if the LA has read the guidance as above, long pause followed————————- erm no not yet I was told. I suggested they read it and think again, awaiting response
[ Edited: 17 Feb 2014 at 12:09 pm by SocSec ]help neded please. I have a claimant who has lived in same accomodation throughout the period covered by the loophole, sometime however during the period the claim swapped from the husband over to the wife, no break in time but a break in main claimant, can I argue that they are still protected as both were on the claim throughout the period tanks in anticipation
Seems quite a bit of confusion with the A1/2014 and successors of a beneficiary….....
Have a scenario, as above but the claimant left the property and the ex-partner remained and made a claim in her own right. No break in HB.
As far as I can see, and there are differeing views for some reason, as there was no break in HB and there is currently an occupant (Linked) still resident then the protection continues with no break till MArch 2014.
I can’t understand why there can be any other interpretation of the consequential regs….
maybe because the HB office has not read the guidance yet, the folk in my local office admitted they only received them today , rather odd as they were on this site s soon s they were published.
What they seem to be pointing out is the fact that the original claimant has moved out and that they are no longer a couple as opposed to swapping roles.
so it is an inherited tenancy I think and so shold qualify for the relief
The point is they were a couple until one moved out!
If you don’t read it that way, it’s a pretty meaningless provision.
Peter’s put together a flowchart to check exemption under the 1996 rule ...
I have had a client who has a 4 week break and a 2 week break in her HB claim so has not been eligible for the exemption. My query is whether the break is more than 4 weeks in one instance or whether the LA look at the sum of the total breaks such as in this case?