× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Lambeth Housing Benefit

ASH
forum member

Welfare officer - St Christopher's Hospice, SE London

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 16 June 2010

I have just been told that Lambeth Housing Benefit is routinely adding a non dependant addition to all claims with anyone who has turned 16 in the family in the week following their 16th birthday unless the family prove they are still getting child benefit for them. 


Is this happening elsewhere?

Any thoughts about challenging this? 

 

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

The Council is entitled to part-suspend HB if an issue arises as to whether a superseding decision is necessary.  But 16 will often be too early - there is no non-dependant deduction for a child under 18.  It is certainly arguable that it is prudent to part-suspend HB at some point in the 16-20 age range while enquiring about the child’s circumstances.  But only if there a plausible chance that HB will reduce.

A child under 18 becoming a non-dependant can only affect the HB claim if the claimant has income above the applicable amount (lose allowance for child, lose family premium and earnings disregards if you have no other children).

Most local authorities do this nearer the 18th birthday, because then the consequences can get a lot worse and affect passported cases as well.  I would say the earliest they should part-suspend would be the post-16 child benefit terminal date but only in cases where the claimant has income above the applicable amount.  In any other case it makes more sense to leave it until 18.

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

As HB anorak says, there is no non dep deduction until the relevant person reached 18 so on “passported” awards, the imposition of any deduction is simply wrong

With other awards, if the person leaves education, this will result in a reduction in the applicable amount, not the the making of a non dependant deduction

Of itself, receipt or otherwise of child benefit is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the person is a qualifying person for child benefit purposes.  This was explained by Judge Turnbull in CH/2812/2008 at [10-11]

10. Whether it was right to cease including a personal allowance in respect of Vanita in the Claimant’s applicable amount did not depend directly on whether child benefit had ceased, but on whether she had ceased to be a “young person”: see para. 2 of Part I to Schedule 3 to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. “Young person” is defined, in reg. 19(1) of those Regulations, as having the same meaning as “qualifying young person” in s.142 of the 1992 Act – i.e. the definition is effectively the same as that which applies in respect of child benefit.

11. Because Vanita’s new course was not (as I find) “advanced education”, within the definition in reg. 1(3) of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006, the Council was wrong to remove the personal allowance in respect of Vanita, from which it follows that there was no overpayment, and therefore no recoverable overpayment. The entitlement to have a personal allowance in respect of Vanita included in the Claimant’s “applicable amount” turned on whether Vanita was still a “young person”, and not on whether child benefit was still in payment. If, as appears to have been the case, payment of child was wrongly terminated by the Revenue, it did not follow that the Council was entitled to cease treating Vanita as a “young person.”

File Attachments