New Tenancy Start Date

Been trying to look into this and keep getting different answers. 

New tenancy begins on Monday 9th August, tnt moves in Tuesday 10th August, new claim for HB made same week.  HB awarded from 10th August.

CPAG handbook suggests that should be from Monday 9th.  Everything I can find which comes from official HB sources - LA websites, HB circulars etc, says that Tuesday 10th is correct - but only from 2006 - because HB cannot be paid if property is not occupied as main home.  But the occupation rule is based on SSCBA reg 130 which has been in force since 1992 so not sure what change occurred in 2006.

Also quoted is reg 80 of the HB regs - but this refers to being able to pay a daily amount where liability to pay the rent begins part way through a benefit week not where occupation begins part way through a week (or at least that is my interpretation).

Can’t find any caselaw and now starting to not be able to see straight.

I know that its only a small amount, but it happens regularly and as our tenants can be vulnerable I don’t like them being put in any debt if it can be avoided.

Thanks

Tricky.  The relevant provisions in this situation are HBR 80(3)(a) in conjunction with HBR 76(2).

In my view, HBR 80(3) is ambiguous and unsurprisingly that ambiguity has led to different LAs and practioners taking different views.

There isn’t any question that, in the technical sense, HB commences from the Monday courtesy of HBR 76(2).  What is at issue is whether HBR 80(3)(a) provides for the rent to be apportioned over all 7 days of that benefit week, or just the days the claimant occupies the dwelling as his home.

HBR 80(3)(a) provides that “...his eligible rent for the benefit week in which he becomes liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling which he occupies as his home shall be calculated by multiplying his daily rent by the number equal to the number of days in that benefit week for which he is liable to make such payments”

Some LAs take the view that “such payments” is with reference to both liability AND occupancy to be satisfied.

However, others take a view that the absence of punctuation means the sub-para must be read as a whole and is not open to such an interpretation and the reference to occupancy is merely in the context of being in that benefit week.

For what it’s worth, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to be happy to follow either interpretation when working for LAs until/unless the legislation is amended or a UTD settles it.

Glad to have cleared that up….. :-) .