week one yes rule

HB office awarded from 15/3/13 (date moved in) - Appeal submitted seeking HB from 13/3/13 (date liability began) - all other conditions of entitlement have been satisfied for the week-one-yes-rule to apply.

attended a tribunal yesterday citing HB Reg 76(2) as grounds for HB to commence from the date liability began for the first time (in this case Wed 13/3/13- LA had only paid from Friday 15/3/13 as that was the date client moved in)

The judge did not give me a decision at the hearing but instead advised that I would receive a written decision - however he stated during the hearing that 76(2), in his mind, could not be considered because the client had a previous tenancy for which he was liable for rent up to and including 10/04/13 - and that the HB on 2 homes rule means the earliest he can get HB for his new home would be 15/3/13 (the date he moved in).

Considering that comment I cant see that anything would turn on that point because:

Liability began for the first time;
a proper claim was made on the date liability began and;
client moved in within the same benefit week

As far as I can see 76(2) would still apply - does anyone agree or disagree ???

I know its early but all views would be welcome

I think the judge is raising the point that 76(2) applies where the claimant “is otherwise entitled to housing benefit” which can only apply in respect of the “dwelling normally occupied as his home”.

So your client is only otherwised entitled to HB on his new property once he is occupying it. He can, of course be occupying both old and new property but only in specific circumstances such as where reg 7(8) applies.

Reg 76 applies to the commencement of entitlement following a new claim, which this doesn’t seem to be.  The relevant provisions in a case like this are Regs 79 (changes of circumstance) and 80 (calculation of eligible rent in week of change).

They are fiendishly complicated, but in a case where the claimant moves and/or becomes entitled to HB on two homes in mid-week the change of circumstance takes effect from the precise day.

But that is not the end of the matter: as well as identifying the date of the change, the Council also has to calculate the eligible rent for the week in which the change falls.  This will be a composite eligible rent made up of X days’ old and Y days’ new.  It is calculated under Reg 80(3)(b) where there is a two homes overlap and Reg 80(3)(c) where there is not.  In my opinion, it is by no means clear that this composite week is made up only of days when the claimant occupied the accommodation - I believe the Reg can be interpreted as allowing HB to be paid for all the days in that week for which the claimant is liable to make payments, including the days before s/he moved into the new property.

This is by contrast with Reg 80(3)(a) which applies in a Reg 76(2) case, and which only allows HB to be paid for days when the claimant is liable to make “such payments”, those being payments in respect of the dwelling occupied as the home - on days when the claimant does not occupy, they are not “such payments”.  That would be DWP’s argument at any rate.  But subparas (b) and (c) of Reg 80(3) are not so precisely drafted.

Therefore in your case I believe the Judge is quite correct to say that Reg 76(2) doesn’t apply because this isn’t a new claim; however, if the statement of reasons doesn’t get to grips with Regs 79 and 80(3) you will still have grounds for appeal on inadequate reasons.