notice periods and housing benefit

Does anyone know if there is an argument that the tenant is liable for rent and more importantly therefore housing benefit if they have a notice period and they are unable to provide the required notice. For example they go to a care home or die unexpectedly.  In our experience the liability to pay the rent passes to the estate (or the family when its a care home) but not the entitlement to hb unless the family are aware enough to state it is a temporary stay.

More info is needed - what are the exact circumstances in this case?  Info needed is:

1)  Is there one liability (if so, is it on the “old” or new dwelling?)?

2)  Is there liability on both dwellings?

3)  Did the clmt move out before the end of the notice period?  If so, why?  Also, how much of the notice period was left after the move / vacation?

4)  What kind of accommodation did the clmt move to and, was this (genuinely temporary) or a trial period of some kind?  If temporary / trial, why?

5)  Is the clmt liable for payment on both dwellings?  If so, could the dual liability have been reasonably avoided?

6)  Is the clmt liable for rent (or analagous payments) at the new dwelling?

Without all of the above info (and that is far from exhaustive), it really isn’t possible to accurately answer the query in the original post.

To clarify - no notice given before move. 

2 separate HB claimants happily jogging along getting full HB for their accommodation then get taken to hospital as an emergency.  One died in hospital a day later and hb stopped the claim as soon as they were notified. 

The other had to go into a nursing home with full continuing care funding which got sorted out fast and they moved in a week later.  Again housing benefit stopped as soon as the move because no-one considered they should state trial periods/temp stays as it was so obvious to them all the tenant were never going to go home. 

In both cases the landlord has said there is a 4 week notice period and the family was asked to pay which they have. 

My thoughts are really about advising next time rather than chasing the above

Thanks for the above.

Does anyone know if this has been challenged (or could be).  It seems to me there is unavoidable liability in both cases.  Its true that the nursing home case can be avoided as long as everyone understands that a nursing home admission is always initally a trial and therefore should be considered temporary for a while.  Most families are just puzzled when this is put to them though and feel that they are being asked to misrepresent the situation.