My cl is 62 and recently returned from Spain after living with his brother for 6 years.
He was found to be homeless and offered a flat which would take 6 wks to refurbish.The LA seem to have told him to find his own BnB having said there was nothing available for him.He says that he took the cheapest option, £35 per night and that he was never told that HB would not be paid in full.(no income as PC claim caught by HRT).Alas, on investigation there was a sizeable shortfall on HB and cl is heavily in debt for a 6week period.
It seems that the LA didn't fulfill their full duty notwithstanding the HB problem.Any thoughts?

I think that if what your client is saying is correct the authority appear to be in breach of their homelessness duty and he may well have redress for this, I'd suggest that, as a CAB, you consult Shelter's NHAS helpline about this.

On the benefits side he could ask for a discretionary housing payment to make up for any restriction to the rent. But a DHP won't cover ineligible service charges, such as meals, which I suspect may make up the bulk of the shortfall.

Have you appealed the HRT decision? Even if you can push the start date of the claim back a week or so it should reduce the debt significantly.

I am a benefits person not a housing one, but, based upon a recent case I had dealings with in my LA, my understanding of the Housing situation is as follows;

When someone has recently returned from another country, before the local authority has any obligation to that person for housing purposes they would normally have to establish residence by renting privately in the area for about six months.

The HRT that your client appears to have had problems with for Pension Credit purposes should also apply for Housing Benefit purposes and is exactly the same test. The fact that different conclusions were reached by the pension service and the LA, although not necessarily incorrect, *might* suggest that one of the organisations got the decision wrong.

Tue 10-Jun-08 09:53 AM by paul__moorhouse

My knowledge of housingi and homelesness laws is rusty to say the least which was why I suggested Frodo contact Shelter.

But what Jeff is referring to, is, I think, the application of the HRT to Homelessness legislation. If what the client is saying is correct and the authority have accepted that they have a homelessness duty then I think that means two things:

1) The homelessness officer concurrs with the HB section in concluding that your client IS habitually resident (placing the Pension service in a minority of 1!)

2) They will also owe him a temporary accommodation duty both whilst making investigations and until they have discharged their duty to secure acommodation. (However, they will not have a duty to feed him, or meet any non-housing costs included in the rent such as fuel).

But as I say, Shelter are the experts not me...

I also wondered about a crisis loan (which has no HRT), but unless the landlord was to refuse to provide meals becuse of the debt (which I certainly wouldn't encourage) I can see very limited grounds for establishing a risk to health or safety.

Thanks,
I think the big question is if the client is absolutely correct in what he tells me.I've found further papers to suggest this may be somewhat different so have written to the LA and the P Service.
However, the point about the PS not allowing a further claim was correct as Ispoke to them myself and was told no claims would be allowed until HRT satisfied on 13/7.

Your client can make as many claims as he wants.

The Pension Service are fully entitled to make the same decision on each of them, but they can't refuse to allow him to make one!

However the point as I see it is that if he now has a tenancy here but not in Spain. Means that they have to at least consider whether that puts him in a different position from when he had no tenancy in either country.

Would the 'Swaddling' judgement not apply in this case?

Swaddling was decided under EEC regulation 1408/71 for the purposes of benefits designed to cover the risks outlined in Article 4(1), or special non-contributory benefits listed in annexe 2(a) pursuant to paragraph 2a of article 4.

Old age benefits are on the list in paragraph 1. I think I remember reading somewhere that it was successfully argued that Pension Credit was a benefit to cover the risk of old age. If not then it would certainly be worth a try. A person has to be classed as a worker under the regulation first however but worker under this regulation does not have the same meaning as other areas of European or domestic legislation.

I wonder why this guy suddenly acquires HR on 13 July in the eyes of the Pension Service. I am guessing that, at that time, he will have been here for what they have decided is an "appreciable period of time". In my experience the DWP apply a completely arbitrary length of time which is the same in all cases (I bet it's 8 weeks, isn't it?), despite the caselaw clearly indicating that it varies with the circumstances.

This person is a British citizen, I am inferring. If so if he is coming back to the UK to resume residence, they should be looking at a substantially shorter period of time (and it can be as little as a day). If he has roots in this country which he is picking up again, he is no less HR in this country now than he will be on 13 July.

I would suggest asking for a statement of reasons from the Pension Service on their HRT decision.

8 weeks Andy? You're being unreasonably generous to the DWP, if you look at Frodo's other posting in the Pension Credit forum, you'll see it's three months (the standard figure used in all circumstances in my experience by the Pension Service).