My organisation provides housing for people with mental health problems / learning disability. When they move on it is often into council housing where they need to say yes to a property the day they see it or it will go to someone else. They sign a tenancy and become liable for rent that same day. They may not move for a while (sometimes weeks) while preparations are made. We have always applied for dual HB to cover the overlap of liability for rents (on our places where they have to give 28 days notice and the new home)and had never or rarely had a problem before now. The HB dept are now refusing all applications for dual HB because clients are not "occupying" their new home. Rent is paid up until the end of their notice period on our property but clients are left with arrears on the new home which is not the best of starts.

It is not practical for clients to move into a new place the day they view it. I know the tem "occupy" is a grey area with moving belongings in, signing to take over utilities etc being taken into account but we would actually be lying if we said someone had actually moved on the day they sign their new tenancy. I vaguely remember seeing something about delays in moving in being allowed if people are waiting for community care grants (poss for decorating?). Is this right (though we're having lots of these turned down as well at the moment).

As I understood the regs, overlaps can only be paid on the old property once it has been vacated as it deals with unavoidable liability at the old address. I don't suppose it is practical to move in immeadiately and am slightly suprised that the liability starts the day they view and accept the tenancy. Are there no housing loans or grants your LA can allow. I know my housing section will advance monies for deposits and notice if essential (some repayable)

If a claimant becomes liable for rent on a new property and cannot move immeadiately due to waiting for a social loan to help with move, has a child under 6, is disabled or someone in the family is or over 60 the LA can grant 4 weeks before moving on HB, BUT this rule doesn't apply if they have HB on old property! The regs suck in this case

Basically you can't get HB paid prior to moving in and for any period where you are not resident unles the delay was due to waiting for disabled adaptions of the community care grant as you correctly state.
Surely these people get some notice that they are being offered a new property. They should be informed at the time of sign up that they wil be laible for rent until they actually move it.

Your organisation will be OK as you can get the 4 week notice period paid as 'reasonable' as offered accommodation at short notice. Sounds more like a problem for the local authority providing the housing.

I broadly agree with the above - the legal basis is as follows.

Based on the circumstances stated, I agree that the LA is correct. This means HB may well have previously been paid in error.

For 2-homes & overlapping liability, the two main areas relevant to this situation are:

1) change of address: clmt moves in at the time liability; or

2) change of address: the move is delayed.


For "1", HBR 7(6)(d) applies. For "2", HBR 7(6)(e) applies.

Where "2" is at issue, HB can only be considered if:

a) the delay is reasonable (the reference to HBR 7(8); AND
b) the delay was necessary for the specific purpose of adapting the dwelling to meet the disablement need(s) of the clmt or a member of his family (the reference to HBR 7(8)(c)(i)).

With regard to moving belongings into the property, that may well be enough if the clmt didn't already have the previous home (such as being in hospital). But, it seems pretty clear from the original post that the clmt is still very much living at the "old" address.

As an aside, but potentially importantly, I have seen an argument suggested that HBR 7(6)(e) can in fact never apply to a change of address that occurs in-claim. This is because para 8(b) must also be satisfied and this can only work in the context of a new claim. I'm not yet aware of an LA deciding on that basis, but at some point I'm guessing it will be tested one way or another.

Regards