HB for 2 homes and temporary absence

Hi,

We have a tenant who we are moving to a new property on health grounds on the advice of and with help from their social worker. The new property needs to be adapted for their disabilities. Due to the state of their health, it is likely they will have to go into respite care for a short period whilst the property is being adapted.

My question is, can they claim HB for both properties under the 4 week rule due to the disability adaptations, whilst at the same time using the temporary absence rules whilst in respite care?

Not a situation I’ve come across before, and it’s just something that has had to happen quickly due to the state of health.

Thanks

I think the two homes situation is fine on its own but I do wonder about the 4-week temporary absence on top.

Reg.7(16)(a) of the HB Regs 2006 stipulates that they must intend to return to occupy the main dwelling as their home, in cases where they are absent from the main dwelling. They wouldn’t be intending to return to the “old” main dwelling, they’d be moving to another dwelling which would in turn become their “new” main dwelling.

Maybe HB Anorak might have an idea whether it’s possible?

Thanks for the response, I hadn’t considered the impact of the intention to return requirement.

So as I’m reading it, they can probably get HB for the new property whilst it’s being adapted, even if they are in respite care, but they can’t get it for the old property whilst serving the notice period because they don’t intend to return to it. Not an ideal situation, but hopefully the old property can be re-let fairly quickly to minimise the time they remain liable.

How about this: before going into respite care, the claimant will be treated as occupying two dwellings by virtue of Reg 7(6)(e): physically occupying the old home while awaiting adaptations on the new one.  But upon entering residential care for a brief period, the situation will be covered by Reg 7(6)(d) instead: the claimant has now moved out of the old home with unavoidable continuing liability.  This would require the claimant to be viewed as having moved into the new home, and to now be temporarily absent from it.  R(H) 9/05 contains some commentary on that - it involved moving possessions into the new home despite the claimant not personally having been there yet.  I wonder whether being treated as occupying the new home under Reg 5(8) would satisfy that - or would the word “return” be a problem if the claimant has not yet physically occupied the home?  The argument would be that you can be temporarily absent with an intention to return to a place that you were treated as occupying immediately before your absence.

This is from para 21 of R(H)9/05.  I have snipped it out of a tortuous legal context which is not an exact fit for these facts, but even so I think it resonates:

I do not consider that it was in the contemplation of the Secretary of State in making these regulations that a person in need should be deprived of housing benefit when ill just because they became ill when in the process of moving home when at any other time, either in their previous home or in their new one, they would have been entitled to benefit during the illness. It would, in my view, require very strong words to give effect to so odd a result, which can affect the entitlement of the claimant to substantial sums in housing benefit, and put them at risk of losing their home.

That’s a very good point - if at least some of his furniture and belongings are moved into the new property, then that could be said to now be his main dwelling in respect of the temporary absence, with the unavoidable liability for the previous residence enabling HB to be paid there as well.

Many thanks, that makes sense. I’ll put that to the Husing Officer involved to see if we can arrange for furniture to be moved across whilst in respite.