Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Housing Benefit

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 373

Joined: 17 June 2010

We have a client and are not sure that the LA are correct in a decision they made.

Client lives with husband and 2 dep children - husband is in receipt of PIP ER Mob and SR DL - our client was claiming IS and CA (as well as CB and CTC)

In September 2020 she became a FT student, and her IS was stopped and HB then ended the claim, on learning she was a FT student.

We could not see anyway that she could retain HB as a FT i.e. not both FT students, no longer in receipt of IS etc

Her husband could claim for them both, if new claims were allowed

Anyway, HB have now contacted the client and said: -

Your Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction claim was incorrectly terminated from 4th October 2020. The assessment created a Housing Benefit overpayment of £2,004.60 for the period 5th October 2020 to 17th January 2021 and a Council Tax adjustment. Notification letters detailing the assessment were sent to you on 27th January 2021.

After your claim was terminated, you were advised to claim Universal Credit because you were now a student and no longer in receipt of Income Support or Carers Allowance. However, after careful investigation of your claim I can confirm that you can continue to claim Housing Benefit continuously from the 5th October 2020 on your claim number XXXXX and your claim does not need to be changed to make your husband the claimant.

Also the husband wants to claim UC, to replace the lost IS, so the HB would then stop.

So either (i) HB are wrong or (ii) we have missed something

[ Edited: 8 Feb 2021 at 06:26 pm by roecab ]
Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 920

Joined: 27 February 2019

I think HB are correct as their applicable amount would include the disability premium - see Reg 56(2)(c).

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 373

Joined: 17 June 2010

Excellent, thank you.

Still the issue of claiming Universal Credit though.

andyrichards
forum member

City services - Brighton and Hove City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 199

Joined: 3 January 2013

I don’t see any reason why he could not claim UC if he wanted to.  Not sure he’d get it backdated though (if that’s what he’s looking for).  That would of course bring the HB award to an end.

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 373

Joined: 17 June 2010

Andy,

Many thanks.

Yes, although the issue is the client is adamant that she does not want to, or her husband to, claim UC, they think IS should still be in payment - but no chance of that, as the student finance is too high, and she lost her condition of entitlement, as a carer, when she became a FT student her CA was stopped.

Trying to explain that UC could possibly include the LCWRAG for hubby and this would be higher than then disability premium within her HB claim but as I say they are not keen at all, more so now that HB has been reinstated!

Best wishes.

Prisca
forum member

benefits section (training & accuracy) Bristol city council

Send message

Total Posts: 72

Joined: 20 August 2015

Im not sure her HB should be reinstated - in the case of couples were one is a full time student, it has to be the non student who is the claimant….  HB reg 56 2 is the bit were interested in - that lists the students who are eligible
The fact they have kids is irrelevant because they are part of a couple
LONE parents are eligible to claim,


Id ask the LA what regs they are using to treat her as eligible - wouldn’t ewant to end up with a bigger o/p later down the line./
prob not what your customer wants to hear but ...... .

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 373

Joined: 17 June 2010

Prisca,

But 56(2)(c) makes it clear that if it applies then 56(1) is disapplied?

That is my reading of it?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/213/regulation/56