× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

HB of less than the 50p minimum - are entitlement and payability the same or not?

Cordelia
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Wrexham Council Welfare Rights Team

Send message

Total Posts: 149

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’ve come across a client who appears to have entitlement of 6p per week based on her current income.  This is below the 50p minimum amount so I accept that no HB is currently payable.  She was previously entitled to a higher amount of HB but her income has increased.

She is anticipating a change of circumstances which would increase her entitlement.  It would be much better for her to be on HB than on UC.

I’m not sure whether her HB award ends if her entitlement falls below 50p per week, or whether the claim should continue to exist even though no payments are being made.  If her claim continues then it can be superceeded in the future.  If it ends then there is no way to start a new claim.  Our HB department computer says that her entitlement ends, but the human staff are willing to look at it if we can find some precedent. 

The regulations say “where HB is payable in the form of a rent rebate or allowance, it shall not be payable where the amount to which a person would otherwise be entitled is less than 50 pence per benefit week”.  But could she remain entitled even though nothing is payable?

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1995

Joined: 16 June 2010

I think the problem is in the wording “... to which a person would otherwise be entitled…”.  That seems to imply that ‘entitlement’  does not exist.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Gareth Morgan - 12 December 2019 02:30 PM

I think the problem is in the wording “... to which a person would otherwise be entitled…”.  That seems to imply that ‘entitlement’  does not exist.

I see what you are saying, but “it shall not be payable” implies the opposite!

It could also be relevant that the enabling power for this regulation is SS(C&B)A, s.134(4), and that only provides for the benefit not being payable, so even if the HB Regs are saying there isn’t entitlement, that would be ultra vires.

Cordelia
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Wrexham Council Welfare Rights Team

Send message

Total Posts: 149

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thank you both for your opinions.  I’m leaning towards Charles’s reading of the wording. 

Section 134 of the SS(C&B) Act states:
Exclusions from benefit

(1)No person shall be entitled to an income-related benefit if his capital or a prescribed part of it exceeds the prescribed amount.
(2)Except in prescribed circumstances the entitlement of one member of a family to any one income-related benefit excludes entitlement to that benefit for any other member for the same period.
(3)Subsection (2) above does not prevent different members of the same family becoming entitled to different community charge benefits by virtue of their fulfilling the conditions in respect of different charges or of different contribution periods.
(4)Where the amount of any income-related benefit would be less than a prescribed amount, it shall not be payable except in prescribed circumstances.

So there is a distiction between not being entitled (sections 1, 2 and 3) and benefit not being payable (section 4).  If our client’s change of circumstances happens as anticipated, we’ll pursue this with Housing Benefit.

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

Well, however we want to read reg 75 of the HB regs, section 130 (1)(c)(ii) of the SSCBA says a claimant is entitled to HB, albeit not paid.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/4/pdfs/ukpga_19920004_310319_en.pdf