New UC claim, Failed HRT, LA refusing to reinstate HB without dragging out an appeals process

Morning all

I’d really appreciate a second opinion on this. We don’t often get HRT cases and i’m scratching my head.

Our resident made a claim for UC following a change of circs but failed the HRT. Am I right in saying I need only direct the LA to reg 8 UC (TP) regs 2014 in order to get the HB claim reinstated?

LA are insisting our residents goes through an appeals process. They have said this will take 12 weeks and there are significant arrears already. Claimant’s only income now is her DLA. Her IR-JSA stopped when her derivative RTR ended (prompting the claim for UC). No RTR other than as a Jobseeker.

Thank you.

If they have no R2R other than as a jobseeker, they are not going to qualify for HB.

I think UC(TP) Reg 8 is a red herring here: yes HB should be reinstated if the claimant has an HB-qualifying right to reside, because s4(1) has not been satisfied and Reg 8 has therefore not been triggered; but if the episode has prompted the Council to review the claimant’s R2R and they have concluded that she is a jobseeker at best then yes she will have to appeal and hope she can persuade someone that she has a better R2R.

Thanks HB Anorak. I hadn’t considered that.

I do not think the LA are questioning R2R as yet but this will no doubt need to be addressed. Back to the drawing board!

I have a similar case where claimed UC in May after failing WCA. Client had been on ESA (CB) only + HB.

I have tried to flag up the UC local partnership route to see if UC at a higher level will comment on automatically sending HB stop notices on cases where they areclearly not satisfied a person has R2R, but nothing back so far.

I take HB Anorak’s point entirely - some of the HB R2R decisions I have seen in other “ex-HB now UC” cases look distinctly dodgy. This client is protected from Hab Res for HB by having been continually in receipt of HB since 26th April 2004, so probably should be able to have his HB paid. I was hoping UC would revise decision on appeal which has been submitted (reasonable case to argue he had acquired permanent residence 15+ years ago) but UC have not provided any appeal response within 8 weeks

Worth citing the UT decision on Tax Credits a couple of weeks ago where Edward Jacobs rejected HMRC’s submission that the stop notice in itself is decisive for terminating legacy benefits.  The issue is whether s4(1)(a) to (d) have been satisfied; on the (rather briefly described) facts of the UT case, those provisions were satisfied but in a case where UC is rejected because of HRT/R2R they clearly are not.  The UT case is authority for not terminating legacy benefits in such cases.  When Councils email questions to DWP about this type of case, the reply just witters on about “the HB gateway is closed” and when pressed for legal analysis they just provide a link to the 2014 Regs.  Pathetic really.