× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Move - New claim or CIC

Ben
forum member

The Welfare Consultancy, London

Send message

Total Posts: 57

Joined: 2 March 2015

On 10 March claimant was evicted and was moved by the LA to a Hotel, overnight (the claimant was not charged).

On 11 March the claimant moved into interim accommodation provided by the homeless section in another London borough.

A change of address form was completed but the LA are now arguing that a new claim is required given the break of entitlement of one day, is this correct?.

 

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

Cant understand why the LA are being so pendantic because the change of address form can be treated as a claim (see IRINA NOVITSKAYA and -THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS   [2009] EWCA Civ 1260   01/12/2009

As for the somewhat academic question as to whether a new claim is needed, much will depend on whether or not the person can be treated as liable to make payments in respect of the former dwelling on the day she was not charged for the hotel.  [HB Reg 7(7) ].  If that is the case a new claim is not needed.

If Reg 7(7) does not apply a new claim would normally be needed, although even then it could be argued that the Council could carry out a closed period supersession (see CIS/2595/2003)

[ Edited: 19 Apr 2016 at 04:54 pm by Stainsby ]

File Attachments

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

I believe that a person can never be entitled to HB for less than a whole Monday-to-Sunday benefit week.  Sometimes the eligible rent for the week will not be the full seven days, but the award is always weekly.  This isn’t entirely clear from the legislation - you have to trace it down from s130 of the Conts & Bens Act 1992: there must be an “appropriate maximum HB” (AMHB) in order for the claimant to be entitled to HB.  “AMHB” is then defined in HB Reg 70 as the eligible rent calculated on a weekly basis less any non-dep deductions.  This makes HB a weekly benefit in every case.

Now if the claimant was not liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling he briefly occupied on 10 March that will affect the amount of HB payable for the week beginning 7 March, but he is still entitled to HB for the week without having to make a new claim.  His eligible rent will be a composite of whatever amount he remained liable to pay for the former home plus whatever amount he was liable to pay for the second temp homeless acc.

The only complication I can see is if the authority responsible for paying HB is not the same following the second move.  Are the charges for the second temp acc payable to the Council that placed him there or does the arrangement involve a third party landlord such as a housing association?

Finally if they are stubborn and insist on something describing itself as a claim, backdating should not be an issue because there is no time limit to claim HB for temp acc (as long as rent is payable by the day).

Ben
forum member

The Welfare Consultancy, London

Send message

Total Posts: 57

Joined: 2 March 2015

Thanks for the replies - The LA accepted that no new claim is needed and made a closed period supersession.

Cordelia
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Wrexham Council Welfare Rights Team

Send message

Total Posts: 149

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’ve just come across a similar situation, and would be grateful for any opinions. 

The person lives in a full digital area for UC, but up until now has been claiming ESA and HB.  She was living in supported accommodation which apparently charges by the day. 

On Friday she moved out of the supported accommodation and into a social housing tenancy.  The room in the supported housing was immediately filled by another client.  The new property starts tenancies on a Monday, so although she had the keys on Friday she wasn’t liable for rent until three days later.

Her Housing Benefit department have ended her claim on the Friday.  She can’t make a new claim for HB because its a full digital area, so is going to be forced onto UC.  (She’s waiting for a PIP decision so could be significantly worse off under UC.)

Are HB correct?  Or should they have treated her move as a change of circumstances?

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

I would say a change of circumstance, based on the argument I posted above about a whole benefit week being the unsplittable HB atom.  Although her liability for the supported accommodation ended mid way through the week, she was entitled to HB throughout that week.  For the award to end there needs to be a complete benefit week in which the claimant is not entitled to HB.  See my analysis earlier in the thread.  There is also some authority for this in the UT decisions about people forcing a break in claim to get themselves onto LHA back in the day - they couldn’t do it so as to have seamless entitlement, if one award starts immediately after the week in which the previous one ends then there is in fact no end to the earlier award.  I’ll try to find one for you.

Cordelia
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Wrexham Council Welfare Rights Team

Send message

Total Posts: 149

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks HB Anorak, that’s really helpful.  I though I had understood your argument correctly but I wasn’t sure if the daily rent would make a difference.  If there is some caselaw that would be even better.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Case law proving elusive. Not given up.

Edit: found this: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/?ACT=39&fid=8&aid=1242_NAHVJSjs5b5rhYft4WXn&board_id=1

But it’s not on exactly the same point and probably doesn’t add much.

[ Edited: 25 Aug 2017 at 03:28 pm by HB Anorak ]