Dual Housing Payments, rent in advance and DHP

We have a client who moved into disabled adapted accommodation. She waited 4 weeks to move because of the time it took to arrange removal of all her daughter’s disability equipment - hoist etc -.  The bungalow itself did not need to be adapted. She did not move furniture or equipment in before-hand.  Therefore she does not seem to meet the criteria for Regulation 7 (6) or (8).  HB was paid on her old accommodation. I’ve been wondering if the 4 weeks could possibly be considered “rent in advance” and so could be covered by a DHP for the new place?  A long shot I know, but surely when “rent in advance” is paid through a DHP it is not reclaimed when the claimant moves in and starts claiming HB in the regular way - i.e. it is not allocated to any specific four weeks.  Any thoughts?  Ruth

It’s hard to judge what a particular local authority’s decision would be.

I think it could be hard to get them to pay a DHP for rent in advance if it was not required to get the tenancy, plus the fact that it is in the past now anyway. 

On the other hand your client’s particular circumstances may count in her favour.

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying the qualifying criteria for a DHP, but I understood it was simply that the applicant was entitled to HB. What we’re actually talking about here is using a DHP to pay some rent arrears. I can’t see any reason why a DHP couldn’t be used for this, but on the other hand, it will depend on your local authority’s policy - they might only use them where it will help to prevent homelessness - is your client really at risk of homelessness over a month’s arrears?

But I think you’ve got an Equality Act PSED (s149) argument. You are asking the LA to use the DHP to help minimise the disadvantage (i.e. not being able to move in and get two rents paid by HB) which was caused by disability (assuming they would have been able to move in more quickly if they hadn’t been disabled, and hadn’t had the equipment to move).

Thanks very much for both comments. We’ll go ahead and see what the LA response is.  Ruth

further to this - has anyone had any experience of getting HB paid for the 4 week notice period when a young person is leaving temp accommodation into general let and then getting their UC to cover the normal housing costs on the new property?
would UC count this as income and therefore deduct it from the monthly entitlement?
or would the local authority not be obliged to cover it?
currently having issues in Hartlepool with this..

I don’t have any experience of this, but HB is not counted as income for UC purposes (it’s not listed in Reg 66 UC Regs).

On the face of it, the LA should have to continue paying, and it certainly doesn’t count as income for UC purposes, as Timothy says.

I’m only worried that perhaps the accomodation no longer counts as temporary accommodation. That is, perhaps it no longer can be said to be provided to discharge the LA’s housing functions or to prevent the claimant becoming homeless.

Assuming the continuing liability on the temporary accommodation is unavoidable there is no reason why HB cannot cover it in the normal way.  Separately, a UC housing element is payable for the whole of the AP in which the claimant moves, so there could be several weeks’ overlap where both HB and UC housing element are awarded.  Regulation 5 of the UC(TP) Regs makes this possible: the general rule that HB and UC cannot be paid together does not apply when the HB is paid in respect of temporary/specified accommodation.  The HB for the notice period certainly satisfies that.

DWP were telling local authorities a few months ago that this is not allowed because there is no provision in the UC Regs for the claimant to be treated as occupying two homes.  As ever, the default assumption that anything DWP says about UC is almost certainly wrong is true in these circumstances: no-one is asking UC to treat the claimant as occupying two homes, it’s HB that is doing that.  UC is being paid for the one home that the claimant actually does occupy, and no other - which is correct; HB is also correctly being paid because the claimant is treated as occupying the temp acc under the HB Regs.

This would not be treated as “overlapping payment” income for UC under Reg 10 of the TP Regs because the claimant is entitled to the HB.

Then only question really would be just how unavoidable is the overlap.  Should someone be charged for a notice period on temp acc when they have moved on to general needs?  That might be the issue here.

PS - saw Charles’s comment above after posting.  That could be an issue as well, unless the setting has the characteristics of specified accommodation in which case there would not need to be a continuing 1996 Act duty … might still be a question over support provision during the notice period but I think the sensible view would be that it remains specified accommodation if support was provided before the notice period.

Sorry, I edited my earlier post. Do you think there may be an issue with it being called “temporary accomodation” once the claimant has alternative accommodation?

EDIT: Never mind!

Yes, I agree that could be an issue.  I would tentatively think that it is still temporary accommodation in that it was provided to fulfil a 1996 Act duty, that is the only reason the claimant ever lived there and the notice period is ancillary to the homeless duty.

I think there’s another point; the charge for temporary accommodation is not rent as such - it is a reasonable charge for providing accommodation (s206 HA 1996). I think it is hard to see how it could be reasonable to ask somebody to pay for a notice period when you are moving them out of TA. I’ve never heard of an LA doing this, and I’ve never seen a TA agreement that included a notice clause.

I can think of a few other good (legal) reasons why an LA shouldn’t be asking homeless people to pay for a notice period when they move on from TA. But this isn’t a housing law forum, so I’ll leave it there.

Thanks guys I will pass it on. I think the temp accommodation issue might need to looked at ..I’m not sure whether it has that kind of status or that of supported (and therefore exempt) accommodation for under 18s… It’s not really temporary if someone stays there for up to 2 years is it…
As for HB not being counted as income for UC purposes…I have in fact seen it happen but that was in the early days back in Calderdale. It was only the once but it does stick in my mind…
Nevertheless the issue here is getting the LA to cover the notice period.

People can be in temporary accommodation for a long time. The longest I’ve seen is seven years. It is temporary in the sense that it is accommodation being provided by the local authority in discharge of a homelessness duty, while they seek to end the homelessness duty (by securing permanent accommodation).

If it is exempt (rather than temporary) accommodation then the situation is different because exempt accommodation is not necessarily being provided on a continuing statutory basis. Children’s services may have assisted the person into the accommodation, but the tenancy or licence will most likely be between the person and the provider of the accommodation. In that case, I can’t see any reason why there couldn’t be a notice period.

I’m still having issues here
the LA - (Hartlepool) are adamant that the HB is not payable for the notice period due to UC taking over the housing element on the new property and under UC there is no overlapping benefit
is there any recourse?

Why don’t you appeal the HB decision ending the award?

this is more or less what I’ve suggested to my managers - they are just reluctant to get into formal challenges
and also because technically the client has to be the one to appeal and they’ve already moved on so we may have lost contact with them