Can an incorrect HB claim indicate the start of a UC claim?

Hi, I have a case where a disabled client has moved into a new tenancy with 24 care.  Client claims HB believing it’s a supported exempt accommodation but it’s not. Client needs to make a UC claim and ask for backdating but this won’t go back to the start of the tenancy agreement.

I thought I saw caselaw on incorrect HB claims taken to be the start of a UC claim for housing costs but after fruitless searching I think I may have dreamt this (pretty exciting dreamlife!). Does this ring any bells for anyone?

Hi there,

HB:
Is there not an argument for appealing the HB refusal on the basis that it in fact amounts to exempt accommodation given the care?

UC:
What kind of gap is there? I think your client might be alright for a month, but nothing further. If it is the result of some duff advice (or perhaps delay processing and refusing the HB claim) then there might be a case for a complaint + financial redress to the extent of the arrears.

The only case I recall dealing with this is CP v SSWP (UC) [2020] UKUT 309 (AAC)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fca37e0e90e0762a5c6ba28/CUC_0148_2020-00.pdf

This was a supported appeal and the below was from the Secretary of State’s submission, with no addition from the judge. To my mind, the logic would extend to allowing one month even if it took longer to make the decision and notify, provided there was minimal delay from notification of HB refusal to the UC claim.

“However, I submit that the language and purpose of regulation 26(3)(aa) allow a broader view to be taken. In my submission, the function of regulation 26(3)(aa) is to provide relief for claimants who have only belatedly discovered that the benefit they have been receiving has been replaced by universal credit, and therefore have been left unable to satisfy the usual requirement that a claim for universal claim be made on the very day that one wishes to claim from (regulation 26(1)). In view of this, in the instant case, I submit that, for the purposes of regulation 26(3)(aa), the ‘notification of expiry of entitlement’ to housing benefit should be taken to be the letter from Preston County Council that spelled out that the old mechanism for re-establishing entitlement to housing benefit in a new borough by way of a new claim to the new council was no longer available (and hence a claim for universal credit had to be made instead). This notification was sent after the claimant’s last day of entitlement to housing benefit (see page 63). I submit, therefore, that regulation 26(3)(aa) is satisfied. I further submit that regulation 26(2(b) is also met. The couple could not reasonably be expected to claim universal credit until the appellant had been made aware that he could no longer claim housing benefit, and they he did not unreasonably delay his claim for universal credit once they became aware of their position. Accordingly, the time for claiming from 24 September 2018 can be extended down to 22 October 2018, which was when the claim was made [...]”

Best wishes

Alex