× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

13 month backdating rule

Nicola Hersh
forum member

Freelance benefits consultant, London

Send message

Total Posts: 106

Joined: 14 September 2010

Last year, instead of agreeing a discretionary housing payment for a rent increase (because HB had not been informed in time,)  the council agreed to pay the rent from the date the rent went up under the 13 month rule. I think the council said they could use this rule as the tenant was vulnerable and the rent increase was less than 13 months ago. The council may also have said that there was continuous good cause for a late claim.

Does the 13 month rule still exist? Is so, if the rent went up over 13 months ago, could HB backdate 13 months or would they need to have been notified within the last 13 months?

Kevin D
forum member

Independent HB/CTB administrator, consultant & trainer (Essex)

Send message

Total Posts: 474

Joined: 16 June 2010

If a change of circs is one that increases HB/CTB AND is notified to the LA within one month of that change occurring, the change is counted as taking effect from the actual date in question (barring some exceptions).  If the change is notified late (i.e. more than one month after it has happened), the default position is that the change can only be treated as occurring on the date the LA is notified (again, subject to some technical exceptions),

A rent increase is subject to the one month notification period.  However, where a change is notified late, it can still take effect from the actual date if:

1)  an application (i.e. request) is made for a longer period of time to be allowed for late notification (it can be retrospective), and
2)  the application is made within 13 months of the date on which the change occurred, and
3)  details of the change(s) are given, and
4)  reasons are given for the failure to notify the change(s) earlier, and
5)  it is reasonable to grant the application, and
6)  the change is relevant to the decision to be superseded, and
7)  “special circumstances” are relevant, and
8)  as a result of those “special circumstances”, it was not practicable for the change to have been notified within one month of the change occurring, and

When considering practicality, the test is of feasibility; not desirability or convenience.

Relevant legislation:  regulations 7, 8 & 9 of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions & Appeals) Regulations 2001.

Hope the above helps.

Nicola Hersh
forum member

Freelance benefits consultant, London

Send message

Total Posts: 106

Joined: 14 September 2010

Dear Kevin

Thank you very much for explaining this.