Housing Benefit assessed on ‘nil income’ limited to 3 months?

My client receives CA (and child DLA), CB and CTC. She was also receiving IS as Carer but decided to end this claim back in December (I didn’t find out she had done this until a few months afterwards) for various reasons, but mainly in relation to negative feelings of being associated with being a lone parent on income support.

Since this time she has been claiming HB/CTB assessed on ‘nil income’ (although not really nil because of the additional benefits received). Client found out that her claim had been suspended when payment wasn’t made, no decision letter yet, was initially unable to establish the reasons when called the benefit service, but was eventually told after a call back from a manager that the claim has beeen suspended because nil income claims can only be paid for a maximum of 3 months. (incidentally this manager was also adament that the LHA rules mean that she is only entitled to the 2 bedroom and not the 3 bedroom rate as she has currently been receiving, which is completly wrong so we are yet to see whether this advice is supported in a formal decison notice).

I have looked though the HB regs and cannot find anything to support this, does anyone know if this is the case? Client has now claimed JSA so hopefully any missing payments will be minimal, however pending the issue of a formal decision notice I am trying to establish whether there is any truth in this in case we need to appeal.

Thanks in advance.

So yet another LA claims to have powers it doesn’t.  There is not, and never has been, a time limit for living on “nil income”.  Of course, if a person appears to be living without the means to support him/herself, then the LA *could* draw an inference about the financial circumstances of the clmt - but such an inference will depend on the circumstances as a whole and must be reasonable.

Section 130(1)(c)(i) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 makes it plain a clmt is entitled to maximum HB if “...he has no income or his income does not exceed the applicable amount…”.  This provision is not subject to a time limit.

So, assuming there is not more to this than meets the eye and that the clmt is otherwise entitled, the LA should get roundly hammered at any appeal Tribunal.

This is more a guidance and LA policy issue, I cannot think of any regs that limit the amount of time a claim can be assessed on nil or notional income.

I would think that it was LA policy to review the claimants income every 3 months or so in this situation. (it has been at all the LA’s I have worked at), and suspending before you even ask for the information is ridiculous. I would use a stronger word or two here ;D

edit:
damm i am too slow

Kevin D - 20 April 2011 08:40 AM

So, assuming there is not more to this than meets the eye and that the clmt is otherwise entitled, the LA should get roundly hammered at any appeal Tribunal.

- it should not even get that far.

Krissie Newton - 20 April 2011 08:03 AM

I am trying to establish whether there is any truth in this in case we need to appeal.

  Absolutely not!! You determine a claim based on the claimant’s circumstances, end of!

I would complain and appeal at the same time. There is nothing stopping an LA suspending a claim, bear in mind there is no appeal right against a suspension, but the still need to follow the rules. They need to notify that a claim has been suspended, the reason why it has been suspended and what the claimant needs to do to remedy/rectify this.

Unless the LA got the wrong LHA right from the start, I can’t see how the rate can change, with regard to number of rooms, unless there has been a change in the number of occupiers.

Robert Haigh - 20 April 2011 08:49 AM

edit: damm i am too slow

Not as slow as I am!!

But the annoying thing is they, and other public bodies, do it because they can and no amount of chastisement or censure from tribunals, Ombudsmen, et al, will stop them doing such nonsense again.

nevip - 20 April 2011 09:05 AM

But the annoying thing is they, and other public bodies, do it because they can and no amount of chastisement or censure from tribunals, Ombudsmen, et al, will stop them doing such nonsense again.

Absolutely Paul.  There is no penalty against the individuals who abuse their authority.  It would help if Tribunals made a stand in appeal hearings and started threatening contempt proceedings in cases - particularly where the DWP and/or LAs have failed to cooperate and just ignore Directions to do something or send POs to hearings.  If a Tribunal actually took this action, it would be a clear message to those who effectively stick two fingers up at Tribunals.

I’m only aware of one instance of contempt proceedings involving a Tribunal - a school headmaster was fined.  A few of those cases in benefits (and Tax Credits) would be sobering - even to the apparently thick skinned.  I know there is an argument about cost and proportionality, but surely the overall effect, long term, would be beneficial?

Unfortunately, “misfeasance” doesn’t appear to be widely used.  Shame.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with staff acting in good faith and simply getting it wrong.  But the sheer litany of abuses shows there is a deep, underlying, fundamental problem.

One plus side of UC will be the “one authority” aspect.  Oh, hang on…  apart from the CTB replacement, DHPs, exempt accom and, probably, anything else that might interrupt the smooth running of benefits admin….  I’m sure common sense will prevail in the end…

Kevin D - 20 April 2011 09:20 AM

I’m sure common sense will prevail in the end…

Don’t worry big society will sort it out… for free too.

Thoughtless decisions are made every day; mostly it is an attitude that pervades the assessment floor.
Unnecessary suspensions are my pet peeve, especially over non-dep income.

Thanks all for the confirmation that I hadn’t missed something.

Fingers crossed it will all be sorted quickly, and that it is someone other than the confused manager giving advice over the phone that currently has my clients case on their desk.