Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
HB run-on for occupancy less than a day
Client on HB gave notice on property A, after having viewed property B, signed a tenancy on it, taken the keys, told the council of a change of address. They loaded up a van, but while moving in at proprerty B realised it was unsuitable, and in fact felt the landlord had misrepresented it to them on some issues they had specifically asked about. They reloaded the van the same day, handed back the keys, fortunately landlord A decided to let them back and they resumed that tenancy, apparently on the same terms.
Landlord B (RSL) is charging them a month’s rent, we have advised a complaint and ask them to waive it. In the meantime, we have suggested there is an argument for HB to cover both properties for 4 weeks. Moving out of property B was perhaps unavoidable, due to having to get back in to property A before it went to someone else, and also what turned out to be the unreasonableness of property B. However, LA have refused a claim on property B, on the basis that it was never actually occupied.
According to R(H)9/05, stopping overnight is not an absolute requirement for HB. From the guidance at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hbgm-a3-liability-to-make-payments.pdf we note:
“For accommodation to be classed as occupied, there must be signs of somebody living there. For example enough furniture and fittings to enable someone to live in the accommodation and where personal items are usually kept.”
We are going to seek more detail on the extent and duration to which the “move-in” took place, but it was evidently a very short occupancy. Any thoughts on if an appeal is worth a shot, are there any useful arguments for or against?
On the facts given, I entirely agree with the LA’s reason; this being that property “B” was never normally occupied by the clmt as his home. In my view, R(H) 9/05 is of no assistance on the facts of this case.
Fair enough. We were diverted onto that case, because the LA initially said benefit would not be paid because there was some rule requiring an overnight stay.
Fair enough. We were diverted onto that case, because the LA initially said benefit would not be paid because there was some rule requiring an overnight stay.
Ah! Now I understand why the query. The LA is wrong to rely on “overnight” as being the test of occupancy as the home. What matters is whether there has been occupancy AS THE HOME - there is no minimum time frame. For example, say in a case of temporary absence, the clmt is discharged from hospital and returns home. But, 4 hours later, is taken ill again and has to return to hospital. In those circumtances it may well be arguable that the occupancy was “as the home”, even though only for 4 hours (thus resetting the 13/52 week clock).
However, based on the info given in your case, it’s difficult to see how it could be sensibly argued that the clmt normally occupied property “B” as his home and that was the basis of my reply.
Hope that adds some clarity.
[ Edited: 19 Sep 2011 at 12:42 pm by Kevin D ]