Occupier according to Swale and Regulation 7

I know I am a bit obsessed about this, but I still think the use of Regulation 7 to define ” occupier” for bedroom tax purposes is wrong.  What about this scenario?  - a man with a family who works away from home and returns at weekends.  He does not claim Housing Benefit in either place.  He has a landlady who has solved her bedroom tax problems as recommended by renting a room out to a lodger - him.  But Regulation 7 (1) says:
” the dwelling normally occupied as his home - (a) by himself or if he is a member of a family, by himself and his family”.  Obviously he is a member of a family and his rented room is not ” the dwelling normally occupied by himself and his family”.  However, does this mean he is not actually occupying his landlady’s house for bedroom tax purposes?  And, if he is away from home for study rather than work purposes, is he considered to be a student and therefore someone who can occupy two homes?  Ruth

The solution for the landlady is that she is receiving an amount of disregarded income that exceeds the deduction from her eligible rent.  I think it is still correct to say that her lodger does not occupy her dwelling as his home for the purposes of her HB claim.

The position with students is slightly more complex because of the use of the word “claimant” rather than “person” in one paragraph of Reg 7.  Haven’t got time to give full details now, maybe someone else can fill in the gaps while I am offline (clue: virtually unreadable decision by Judge Mesher)

Thanks H B Anorak - it’s not an urgent question at the minute - it was totally theoretical but the whole business of Swale and Reg 7 keeps niggling at me.  I think they made a big mistake in extending regs appropriate for claimants to other occupants.  Of course prior to the LHA and bedroom tax rules, it would have made hardly any difference (possibly in some Non-dependant cases?)  Good luck with your poring over your UT decision Ruth