Question about the under occupancy loophole.

Hello,

I know that this is dead in the water now, but I was approached this morning by a client who is insisting that she would satisfy the requirements of the loophole while it was live.

The story is that her council have refused to accept the claim as client did move home permanently after 1996.  However, client is minded that as the move was essential because her original home was entirely unsatisfactory for her badly disabled daughter’s needs, then she would be able to rely on some kind of linking.  I’m not sure about this; is anyone else?  And if she is right, does anyone know the authority for it?

Thank you in anticipation of yep or nope.

Patrick.

Very quickly, in case it’s helpful, and because I’m about to dash out, I recall the circumstances of moving must be very specific, like a natural disaster - fire, flood, explosion or natural catastrophe.

DRH p183 to start.

Your response has provided the answer.

Thank you so much Edmund & again Rightsnet.

Patrick.