I know there has been discussion about this before, but I have come across an issue I have not encountered and would welcome any comments.

Tenant already on HB (and HB direct to landlord) moves to new property. They move in within the first week of the new tenancy and notifies the HB Office of a change in circs.

As move is a change of circs it is actioned from Monday following, HB only paid to new landlord from the 2nd week, leaving tenant 1 week in arrears.

HB for that week of entitlement paid to old landlord who are still charging rent - due to the tenant not giving the required notice period.

It just doesn't seem right but I can't find anything to quote.
I appreciate that there is an issue of when increase/decrease in rent should take affect (following circular A31/2004)and debate of Regs vrs circular - but that issue is about a change in the rent, not the fact that the tenant has moved/liable for rent to new landlord - presumably this is a different (albeit related) change??

The more I think this through, the more confused I get, so any help that may clear the fog will be gratefully received.

Hello there

I have come up against this same problem and am trying to get the decision revised. I have argued that the appropriate regulation for change of address in LA area + change of rent liability should be s.68(2) with reference to s.68 (4) of the HB(Gen)Regs 1987. S.68(4) says that if two or more changes of circumstances occur in the same benefit week but would, in regard to s.68(1) take effect in different benefit weeks, they shall take effect fro mthe first tday of the benefit week in which they occur

I also quoted the A14/2004 circular paragraph 21 which supports this and the DWP's HB&CTB Training Module 1 Part 2 on Effective Dates paragraph 3.53.

Looks like the authority is going to quote the A31 circular at me and refuse to change their original decision so I will probably try to take it through to the appeal stage. If anyone has any advice for me, it would be appreciated.

I agree that the regulations, when interpreted like this, create problems for tenants who end up with arrears through no fault of their own.

Regards

Vanessa Thompson

HB/CTB circular A14/2004 and HB/CTB circular A31/2004 are available here.

Vanessa

Thanks alot for this information - I think mine will go to appeal as well so this is really useful -presumably at appeal stage the tribunal will only be interested in the Regs - which is what I've pointed out to my LA - they are going to get back to me next week.

Where can I get access to the Training Module you mention??

Julia

hi julia -

the training module is available here ....

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/training/index.asp

- shawn

Hi there

An update: the LA has responded to my letter requesting a revision on the basis of official error. It is basically saying that because my tenant changed rent due to a change of address, it is not classified as a change in rent (and hence Section 68 (2) does not apply) but as a change in circumstances (and hence Section 68 (1) applies).

Also, as expected, the LA has quoted HB/CTB circular A31 at me.

I am about to write back to start the appeal process so will keep you updated. As always, any advice gratefully received.

i also wrote to the dwp as julia had and asked why 68(4) (where if rent and address both change in same week then surely on 68(4) both changes should be from start of week) didnt apply.and they said the same thing- that the circular 31 was the best advice for LA's but they are to use their discretion....I re-read circular 31 and it says reg 68 makes no sense for the move within LA change of circs. i don't see how, and I don't see how they can also say that just because the change of rent was due to a change of address it doesnt apply (as Vanessa reported, above). I know im abit thick but i can't help thinking this is all a bit illogical. The implications of (a) the current circular- where LA's follow it- and (b) the proposed changes for april 2006, whereby rent and address will make an effective change on HB from actual date whether mid week or not- are potentially disastrous for tenants, whether RSL or private. Landlords are going to start demanding the first weeks rent in full from everybody regardless of whether they are on benefits and regardless of whether its social housing, to protect their income from rents. I think we ought to get someone from NHF, or Housing Corp, or NACAB, or Shelter, or somewhere, tolobby the DWP about this to ensure that the "move in and claim first week of tenancy means you get HB from start of tenancy" rules continue to apply to "move within LA" tenants. anyone got any bright ideas about who to contact?

The phrase "change of circumstances" must cover all changes whther it be a change of address or a change in the amount of rent paid. It obviously also covers a change in the landlord, and other changes such as income.

Where someone changes address within the LA area, that change may or may not involve a change in the amount of rent paid.

I would argue that in the vast majority of cases it does invlove such a change . The change in the rent may arise because of an unavoidable dual liability for whatever period there is where there is an ongoing liability to pay for the previous address after the move, even if the ongoing rent for the new home is the saem as that for the previous one

I am feeling a bit lost here. From the postings above it seems as though if someone, on HB moves within the Local Authority, and informs the LA of the change of circs, then the change wont be acted upon until the Monday after it has been reported.(unless we argue as above). But if someone puts in a new claim within the week that they become liable for rent, HB is awarded from the benefit week that the claim is made.(Reg 65(2)). Would it, then, be more sensible to be advising clients to make a new claim rather notify change of circumstances.

You've summarised it well.

I'd been thinking along the same lines - but a new claim on its own is not enough the claimant would also have to withdraw their claim at their old address so that their claim is terminated hence the need for a new claim at a new address -I'm not sure whether this will confuse things even more and brings with it all the problems a new claim brings - has to be within 1st week, proof of ID/NINO etc etc which a change of circs doesn't require.

Where the change of address is within the same LA, HBR 65 is not relevant in cases where HB is continuous.

The correct reg is HBR 68.

HBR 68(2) covers changes in rental liability and, in my opinion, this makes it expressly clear that such a change takes effect from the same week in which the change occurs.

If the LA are suggesting that the change of address is the ONLY relevant change, the LA would still be wrong. Although a change of address is a change of occupancy which would normally take effect from the following Monday, HBR 68(4) makes it clear that if TWO changes take effect in the same week AND one of those changes is a change in rent liability, then BOTH changes take effect from the change of rent liability.

The above offering assumes that the LA is informed of the CofC within one cal month and it is further assumed that there are no "two-homes" complications under HBR 5(5)(d) or 5(5)(e). HBR 5(6) cannot apply in the situation outlined in the original post.

Hope the above helps.

PS: Circular A31 should be consigned to the bin (or at least a file where no serious attention is paid to it). Er, at least that's my opinion

Regards

I think the bit that has got them in a tizz is the (c) paragraphs of 69(4) & 69(5).

69(4)(c) states “where the claimant ceases to occupy as his home the dwelling in respect of which he is entitled to housing benefit, his eligible rent for the benefit week in which he ceases to be liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling which he occupies as his home for the whole of that benefit shall be nil, unless he is liable to make payments in respect of that dwelling for the whole of that benefit week.”

This seems to say that if someone moves out, as all movers do, they get nowt for that week.

Can a claimant be said not to have "ceased to occupy as his home the dwelling in respect of which he is entitled to housing benefit" albeit that the building in question has changed from one to another? Or must the phrase "the dwelling in respect of which he is entitled to housing benefit" be read as meaning the specific building on which prior to the move his entitlement has been established? Or is there some simple reason this needn't apply that I have missed?

The analysis needs to be taken one stage further.

The following assumes that the level of rent is different for the old & new addresses respectively. It is also assumed that the clmt's changed liability at the new address occurs in the same benefit week as the actual change of address.

If a clmt moves, there is a CHANGE of rent liability - not an end / start. The NEW rental amount becomes the eligible rent for that week - i.e. there is still eligible rent for HB.

Hope this adds a bit more to the lop-sided jigsaw.

Regards