Don't know if anyone has an opinion about this, but some authorities seem to be still requiring claimants to provide evidence of Child Maintenance in payment to assess Housing Benefit. My understanding is that it no longer counts as income, and has no bearing in itself on premiums therefore would not appear to be relevant. Does anyone feel that it is therefore still evidence that is 'reasonably required'? It just seems unnecessary to me but I'm wouldn't want to advise against providing it and so potentiallly jeopardise someone's claim. What do you think (especially LA benefits staff)

Some maintenance that is paid will include an amount for the spouse.

This is not disregarded, so possibly this would be one reason to see evidence of the amount.

That is the only reason I can think of however,

I'm not sure whether all Housing Benefit forms differentiate between maintenance for the spouse and for the children? The cases I've become aware seem to concern Child Maintenance specifically, and evidence is still apparently being required of this.

Thanks for your help anyway, perhaps I'm being a bit picky!

Fri 12-Dec-08 09:43 AM by jmembery

The Benefit section will need to be satisfied that the maintenance is being paid in respect of the children not the spouse.

Some may just take the claimant's word for it, but I don't think it unreasonable if they choose to ask for evidence.

If it is clear however that the maintenance is being paid only in respect of the child - e.g. CS maintenance, then I would agree that it might be unreasonable to insist on documentary evidence as per FIO's concerns.

If you have liaison meetings with your LA perhaps bring it up with them. I can well iimagine that some LA's would be hard-pressed to let this go and change their procedures and might need some cajoling.

Someone mentioned claim forms. Child maintenance and liable relative payments should be distinguishable on a claim form because they were treated differently anyway. I've never known the differentiation of the two to be a problem, so I don't see why it should be any different now.

'Someone mentioned claim forms. Child maintenance and liable relative payments should be distinguishable on a claim form because they were treated differently anyway'

I don't know what you mean by 'liable relative payments' but the issue of the claim form is relevant. Previously if a claimant received payments from their ex-partner and they had children, there was a £15 disregard regardless of whether the payments were for the children or for the partner.

Now the payments are only totally disregarded if they are for the children - if they are for the partner (and the partner has children), it is still subject to the £15 disregard. If a Local Authority is still using old claim forms which just ask about maintenance (which would have been entirely accpetable under the old rules), they may now need to ask as to whether those payments are solely for the children or whether they contain an element of spousal maintenance.

When the new rules came we wrote to all our claimants in receipt of maintenance to establish who the payments were for because we had never previously needed this information...

I stand corrected. Liable relative payments are only distinguisable in IS/JSA.