I remember a suggestion that when benefit periods were abolished a move from one house to another, even accross local authority boundaries did not end the benefit period so that if a claimant continued to get benefit from the authority where they used to live and used it to pay rent at the new home, in a different borough, they would not actually be being overpaid. I think it was John Zebedee who said this on a course but I may be wrong. Anybody ever used this argument and got anywhere?

Hi Damian,

s.134 of the SSAA 1992 requires that LAs must administer HB/CTB within their own areas; therefore a new claim must be made for a new address in a different LA.

LAs do have the discretion to agree to administer HB on behalf of another LA, but I've only ever heard of this being used in attempts to recover overpayments. Based on anecdotal info, even that is very rare due to the amount of admin involved.

However, I have a suspicion that the argument may relate to underlying entitlement (distinguished from ACTUAL entitlement). I'm assuming the scenario is as follows:

Clmt is entitled at address A. Clmt moves (to another LA area), but is overpaid at address A for a period after the date the clmt vacated. Clmt fails to claim at the new LA, but would have been entitled.

The question: Is underlying entitlement applicable to the overpayment at address A, even though the period falls in the new LA area?

Hmmm.... very good question (assuming this is what you are looking at)! And, at this time, I don't have an answer - more thought needed. If I get some inspiration, I'll post again.

Regards

Councils can agree to carry out any HB/CTB funcions on another councils behalf. The most common reason for this is in circumstances where LA boundaries change.

In my previous life working in an LA HB department, I would accept claims as properly made on the date it was received by another LA if the claim had been made to the wrong one by accident. I would simply get a worker at the other LA to agree that they had received the claim on my LA's behalf.

LA's should co-operate with each other to make sure that their residents get all the benefits they are entitled to

Thanks for the replies

Kevin - that's exactly what I'm looking at, I'd be interested in any further thoughts.

I can’t see it myself.

Looking at 104 (1), I would say that as the claimant had not made a claim at the new authority, they were not under any duty to notify changes of circumstances 104(1)(c) to the new authority, nor could there be any issue of misrepresentation or non-disclose 104 (1)(b) at the new authority.

Any issue of failure to notify changes of circumstances, misrepresentation or non-disclosure can only therefore apply to the claim at the old authority. On that basis the effect of remedying any failure would still result in a nil decision from the date of vacation. There would therefore be no UE.

I am interested in hearing others views though as it does appear unfair.

Reg 104 is the provison where any amount properly payable must be offset against an overpayment.

The Court of Appeal decision Adan v LB Hounslow and SOS 19 Feb 2004 (Reported as R(H)5/04)overturned the earlier decisions CH/4871/2002 and R v Wye BC ex p Lord under the pre Oct 2000 version of Reg 104. The earlier decisions held that where IS ended a new HB/CTB claim was needed and so there would be no amount properly payable to offset if no such claim was made.

An amount can therefore be properly payable if no claim is made, even in the absence of the deeming provison in the later version of Reg 104, so it seems there can be so called "underlying entitlement" when a person moves from one LA to another, but fails to make a new claim