Hi I have a client who is in receipt of incapacity benefit. She owns her house and there is no outstanding mortgage. The property is worth about £60k. Client has a long history of mental health issues and has been offered a placement at an adult mental health resettlement unit. The placement could last for upto 2 years. The resettelment unit consists of housing with support and the rent is £105 per week including support and is owned/managed by Social Services. Residents at the unit are offered licence agreements not tenancies. As a general rule the housing costs for residents are paid by housing benefit and supporting people funding.

The client views the placement as an opportunity to regain her confidence and intends to return to her own home once the placement has finished.

Schedule 6 provides that 'the dwelling normally occupied by the claimant as his home' to be disregarded as capital.

Is there any arguement/caselaw to support the position that the house she owns should be disregarded for capital purposes as the dwelling she normally occupies although also staying at the resettlement unit; however, also be entitled to claim housing benefit in respect of the housing costs at the unit?

Any advice would be gratefully received.

I can't see how this can (successfully) be argued.

In order for HB to be payable on any address, it must be occupied as the normal home. If the clmt is intending to argue that her normal home is NOT the resettlement unit (to get round the capital limit), HB is not payable on the unit.

Only one dwelling is going to be regarded as the normal home. And, 2-homes is only payable for 52 weeks max where there is a (realistic) intention to return within that time, or in a time not substantially exceeding 52 weeks. I think it would be impossible to argue that 2 years falls within the remit of "temporary absence".

On the assumption that the clmt's normal home is the unit, I'm struggling to see how her (presumably unoccupied) property can be disregarded.

Briefly, 1st thoughts...the solution may lie in other funding...it seems that you are saying that HB "normally" pays for this type of accom with supported living money...however, arguably, this placement is the only viable means of meeting this client's identified community care needs. Under various legal provisions including s21(1) (a) National Assistance Act 1948, the Local Authority may have a power, not only to arrange, but to fund this accommodation in those circs. Of course, there could then be a charge applied under the assessment of resources and CRAG guidance if it were deemed residential care under s21...but in any event,
her intention to return (albeit after 2yrs) in my view means the value of the property should be disregarded, as the placement is "temporary" in CRAG terms (vry arguable).

There is no discretionary element to charging under NAA48, which could be applied, so it would rest on:-
1. The temporary nature of the accom
2. showing that the provision of accom is the only means of meeting identified needs

Worth a pop i'd say.

There's always the option of letting the house in order to fund the care placement.

Thanks for your responses - I had a feeling that HB was going to be problematic!

In terms of renting the huose out the client doesn't feel she has the capacity to manage this and is also worried that if she decided to leave the placement she may be stuck with tenants during a fixed term of an AST.

Thanks for pointing out s21 NAA 48, I hadn't considered that funding source as yet. Also the client has spent periods of time in hospital under 'a' section. I'm following up see whether s177 MHA may be of use here as well.