Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Hospital inpatient “continually” for 12 months
Good morning all,
Perhaps I should know the answer to this but I don’t. I have a client who is presently detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act and has been so since 10th December 2010. This is, of course, in excess of the 12 month maximum for housing benefit entitlement. However, being aware of the non linking nature of hospital stays, I checked his hospital records and discovered that he was on unaccompanied weekend leave to visit his parents in Birmingham from 4th November 2011 to 6th November 2011; he is on a psychiatric unit in Manchester. The records show that although he went alone and returned to the hospital on time, as far as I can see he did not return to his home for which the housing benefit is the issue.
Can we treat this weekend leave as breaking the “continually” definition and start the housing benefit clock ticking again so as to allow an additional 12 months housing benefit from 7th November 2011?
As always, thank you everyone.
Patrick
Good news. The local council have accepted my interpretation of the “continually” rule and have treated the leave described as breaking the continuity. They have reinstated and backdated housing benefit.
That is good news indeed.
I’m smiling when posting this, so bear that in mind.
In short, I think you have been rather fortunate and the LA has decided wrongly. The info given says the clmt never returned to his own home. On that basis, the clmt has been absent continuously for more than either 13 or 52 weeks and there is no provision to pay HB beyond 52 weeks in any circumstances where absence has exceeded that (or was likely to substantially exceed that time)**.
The clock can only restart by returning to the dwelling AND where occupation is “as his home”. A lucky break for your client….
** There was a FtTD in which a FtTJ found that the 52 weeks limit breached the HRA and, in turn, was ultra-vires in cases involving those with mental health difficulties. However, my understanding is that at least one of the affected LAs is challenging this at the UT.