HB in temporary accommodation - natural migration to UC?

Cl was on ESA but had never claimed HB. Circumstances forced a move to temporary accommodation and HB was paid in the usual way. The cl was then allocated a flat in the same LA area, cl. notified the Council expecting that HB would continue at the new address but they did not act on it.

Cl has now claimed UC but there is gap between notifying Council HB dept and UC claim, giving rise to a debt.

As I understand it a cl. already getting HB who moves within the same LA area should continue to be entitled to HB as it not fresh claim but a change of circumstances on an existing claim. Are there any special rules that disapply this if the HB was given for temp. accommodation, in other words should the Council have awarded HB?

There is a second issue, although the cl was given the keys to the new flat on a certain day they had no furniture so only moved in about four days later. Their personal possessions were put into the new flat the day they had the key.

It is apparently being said that they were not actually living there but I would suggest that this is an oversimplification, they had the keys, were liable for rent and what personal possessions they had were in the flat so to say they were not ‘living’ there seems dubious.

It sounds as though the HB should have just continued when they moved on from TA. My only caveat (other than the potential issue that HBAnorak raised in this thread: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/19292/) is that it doesn’t work if there was a gap between TA stopping, and moving into the permanent accommodation, because then there would need to have been a new HB claim.

I think it would be hard to argue that they had moved in to the new property if they didn’t move any belongings in or spend a night there. You are saying they moved all their personal possessions in when they got the key, but it sounds as though this didn’t include any furniture. So I think we are probably in the grey area where a well made argument about the detail of exactly what were the possessions swings it one way or the other.

If they didn’t start sleeping in the new property for four days, I would hope they were still being provided with TA up until then; in which case there would be no break.

Thanks Timothy, the person concerned has MH problems, had fled DV, spent time street homeless and was only got into TA after a night in A&E so consequently did not have any furniture ! 

Since posting my question I have found R(H) 9/05 where Commissioner Mark said that   ‘moving in’ could have happened when the claimants ‘goods’ were moved in and they had exclusive possession even if they were not able to sleep there for some reason. The Commissioner did not specify what ‘goods’ might mean but my argument is that, although my cl possessed very little, the whole of what they did have was put in the house .  They had signed the tenancy as well and been given the keys and therefore they had ‘moved in’ regardless of whether they couldn’t sleep there for a few days for lack of anything to actually sleep on.

A couple of thoughts to retain HB for the new tenancy if the first 4 days can’t be covered:

Depending on the date that the HB decision was made, you could look at whether a closed period supersession could have retained the ongoing HB despite a 4 day period of non-entitlement.

& if a closed period supersession is not possible, CH/2008/2011 could help to retain entitlement as the period is less than one week.

I have a similar case at the moment, but with UC rather than HB. He had been street homeless, gone into A&E and then a nursing home, and had nothing. We’re arguing that he moved in when he managed to get a bed delivered to the property as it was all he owned, even though he remained in the nursing home for a couple of months after that.

In your situation I’d be glad I was working with HB rather than UC, but I suppose that depends on what your LA are like.