Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
LHA reduced as student has one year tenancy. Continuous claim before 2006 but now LHA from pilot scheme)
The background is that HB for parent did not reduce when student was in halls of residence. HB reduced once student moved to flat. Also, parent is single and disabled. Student goes home frequently to care for parent and has provided evidence.
Parent has request review without success. HB accept that student goes home frequently to care for parent but then don’t seem to have taken into account student’s commitment to caring for parent. Council say student’s main residence is not with parent, as he has a one year tenancy shared with other students. (Private tenancies are usually for one year, so he didn’t have a choice.)
I have quoted both Reg 7(13) and CH/2197/2009.
Would be grateful any advice. Also if anyone knows if private tenants still have any
pre-1966 protection once moved to LHA under pilot scheme?
So I assume that the Council are saying that the student lives elsewhere (so non resident at parents home) and that they go home regularly.
They must therefore have decided either that the student does not actually provide care or alternatively that they do provide care but the parent does not have a proven need to receive care.
I think you need to find out from the Council exactly what the basis of their decision is. I would anyway submit an appeal in order to protect your client’s appeal rights. the LA will then have to produce a response detailing their decision.
Yes, migration to LHA does end pre-1996 protection for private tenants. That would arise in the event of a short break in claim (4 weeks, or 52 in the case of “welfare to work” linking rules) which would not have ended the protection before LHA came along.
So I assume that the Council are saying that the student lives elsewhere (so non resident at parents home) and that they go home regularly.
They must therefore have decided either that the student does not actually provide care or alternatively that they do provide care but the parent does not have a proven need to receive care.
I think you need to find out from the Council exactly what the basis of their decision is. I would anyway submit an appeal in order to protect your client’s appeal rights. the LA will then have to produce a response detailing their decision.
Thank you both for your replies
The council’s reply states they have acknowledged that the student is the carer and they even sympathise with the pressure on the student. Then the council have picked on one fact alone, which is the student’s one year tenancy. It seems purely from this evidence, they have decided that the student is a resident at the address of the tenancy and not the parent’s address. It seems the council has a blanket policy - they pay when in halls of residence and they don’t pay when the same student has a one year tenancy.
I am working on the appeal currently and wondered if anyone else has been successful in a similar appeal?
Why not just point the Council to 13(d)(3A) where a claimant who requires overnight care is allowed an extra bedroom under LHA rules?