I have recently came across a series of scenarios where tenants are on full HB/CTB and they have a non dep who turns 18 and leaves the family household.
Tenant makes the LA aware of the change , however the LA ask for details of when the non dep moved out and where they now live.
The tenants are not always able to provide such details and as a consequence the LA leave the non dep on the tenants claim and obviously a deduction from HB in place. Are there any Regs or guidance on this that might put me out my misery ?

Authorities are only allowed to seek information that is reasonably required to determine entitlement to benefit (HBR 86). In your case, all that is required to determine the entitlement is the knowledge that the non-dep has left.

The question of when the non-dep left is certainly reasonable, but the queston of where they went is not, IMHO, reasonable as it only goes to serve the suspicious and negative nature of benefit administration. Of course, if the LA have reasonable grounds for suspecting the claimant is lying (which is what its all about), then it would be perfectly OK to require evidence.

The decision in CH/0048/2006 might be relevant as it gave some guidance about an authority's use of 'advserse inference'. The facts and circs were different, but the principle that an adverse inference should be reasonable is something that you can build upon. I'm sure that there are other decisions that are helpful.

I might also suggest a 'statement of truth' (google the phrase) from the client should otherwise suffice.

Perhaps the claimant could offer the LA a home visit to quell thier suspicious nature...?

Sounds to me like the LA should be making a decision one way or other (which could then be appealed against) but in point of fact are avoiding this and just not amending the claim. No doubt when you get on to them there would be nothing happening with the info provided and they would deny any specific request for a supersession had been made? Tactically it would be a good idea to have the notification to the HBO in writing making it clear you are asking for the HB award to be superseded (I appreciate you may be picking up on the situation later on). That could concentrate their minds, not allow them just to drag the whole thing out and put the onus on the claimant to prove what may be unproveable, make them aware that the claimant knows what evidence reasonably can be requested and give you something to appeal against.

Agree wholeheatedly with other contributors but would add thatthere is a such no need for corroboration in English law.

This has been upheld on several occaisons by Commissioners eg in R(I)2/51, R(SB)33/85 and CP/3037/2004

I would be looking at sending a compliant to the Chief Executive with a view to going onto the Ombudsman

Ofte a JR pre action protocol letter to the Council's legal dept asking for the Council to make a proper supersession decision giving appeal rights can work wonders