× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Mixed age couple and HB

FThomas
forum member

Financial Inclusion Team, Tai Tarian

Send message

Total Posts: 26

Joined: 8 April 2014

Hi,

Wondering if anyone can help me please? I’m working with a mixed age couple who are struggling to get any help to pay their rent. Joint income is SRP, small occ. pension and the working age partner works part time. They were receiving HB but in June the pension age partner worked for 4-5 days and their income during that time was too high for any HB. They notified HB and it stopped. When they tried re-claiming HB (as they’ve done without any problems in the past) they were told that they could not accept a new claim from them and that they would have to claim UC. Unfortunately, based on current income they do not qualify for any UC but would be entitled to a substantial amount of HB. I just feel that it is very unfair on this couple if they cannot get any help from HB because of a few days work so would be grateful if anyone has any suggestions as to how to get them back on HB?

Many thanks
Fflur

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

What were the precise dates of the work?

FThomas
forum member

Financial Inclusion Team, Tai Tarian

Send message

Total Posts: 26

Joined: 8 April 2014

It was the 18th - 21st June (both dates included).

Thanks

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

I think you may be able to get the decision ending HB revised then. There were two changes of income within the same week, both of which theoretically take effect from the Monday after, so the decision ending the award was wrong.
I’m not 100% sure about this though…

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

FThomas - 26 July 2019 02:49 PM

It was the 18th - 21st June (both dates included).

Thanks

When did they notify the LA? After the 21st? (I Ask because the LA could and should have applied a closed period supersession to the award and HB would not have been terminated, I think that is your best approach if that’s the case)

BTW, the change would take effect from the 17th of June, as it would be classed as 2 changes in the same benefit week so moves back to the Monday in that week..

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Isn’t that rule only if they would otherwise take effect in different weeks?

Either way, why do you think a closed-period supersession is the best approach? If the two changes take effect on the same day, that should surely be enough?

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

Charles - 26 July 2019 07:12 PM

Isn’t that rule only if they would otherwise take effect in different weeks?

Either way, why do you think a closed-period supersession is the best approach? If the two changes take effect on the same day, that should surely be enough?

Ok, putting the effective “week” of change aside as I can’t be certain based on the info anyway, if the change was reported after the event and it’s clear that HB entitlement continues after the hiatus then a new claim is not required. 

If the change was reported prior to the event and action taken by the LA, then sorry, can’t see a way round it.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Thanks for answering. Are you able to explain why that is? Even if the change was reported beforehand, won’t the decision made because of that change be wrong due to the second change which takes effect at the same time?

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

Charles - 29 July 2019 02:03 PM

Thanks for answering. Are you able to explain why that is? Even if the change was reported beforehand, won’t the decision made because of that change be wrong due to the second change which takes effect at the same time?

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from now, do you mean there is the argument that work started and finished in the same week, both changes get carried forward to the following Monday and the earnings are then ignored altogether? There is no cycle of work so average earnings can’t apply?

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Sorry for coming to this late but I’m quite confused as to what’s being suggested in this scenario?

If the earnings took them out of HB entitlement altogether for the week in question, on what basis is there any hope of resurrecting the HB claim?

We’ve not had any similar cases to date but I’d like to know if there’s an argument for keeping such a claim alive. Thanks.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

chacha - 29 July 2019 05:23 PM

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from now, do you mean there is the argument that work started and finished in the same week, both changes get carried forward to the following Monday and the earnings are then ignored altogether? There is no cycle of work so average earnings can’t apply?

Yes, this is what I was thinking.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 30 July 2019 03:33 PM

Sorry for coming to this late but I’m quite confused as to what’s being suggested in this scenario?

If the earnings took them out of HB entitlement altogether for the week in question, on what basis is there any hope of resurrecting the HB claim?

We’ve not had any similar cases to date but I’d like to know if there’s an argument for keeping such a claim alive. Thanks.

Chacha’s argument was that if the information was only provided to the LA after income went back down, then the decision should simply have been a closed-period supersession, and therefore should have continued immediately after.

My argument was that unlike UC (which works simply by what income was actually received in the AP), HB considers changes of income as a regular change of circs. For HB, such a change takes effect from the following Monday. However, there was a second change of circs (when income went back down) in the same week which therefore has the same effective date. This being the case, entitlement should never have ended.

What should have happened was that until the relevant Monday, the original income (before either of the changes) should have been used, and from that Monday, the final income after the second change should have been used.

FThomas
forum member

Financial Inclusion Team, Tai Tarian

Send message

Total Posts: 26

Joined: 8 April 2014

Thank you everyone for all of your replies - really helpful!