We have a tenant who is over 60 years of age who has mutually exchanged. Her tenancy started on 2nd October 2006 but due to a mix up which was partly our fault she did not complete an HB change of address form at the time. The LA suspended her claim on 8th November which was when they found out she had moved and her claim form was submitted on 9th November. We have asked them to go back to 2nd October but they have refused. Has anyone got any ideas?

Are both addresses in the same LA area? If so, the following should apply.

A change of address in the same LA area does not require a new claim - it is simply a change of circs. Based on the info given, the LA only had the power to terminate the original claim IF:

1) benefit was suspended in accordance with DARs 11 or 13AND
2) the LA requested evidence / info - giving a MINIMUM of month for the info to be provided AND
3) the info / evidence was not provided as requested.

If the LA has not comlied with the DAR regs, it simply had no power to terminate the claim.

My advice is to submit an appeal and, at the same time, reqest a statement of reasons for the LAs decision(s) to terminate benefit and then refuse to pay for the gap. Covering my options, I'd make it clear that the appeal was against ALL decisions relating to the issue of benefit not being paid for the period in question.

Is it not the case that HB can be backdated for one year for over 60's anyways, good cause or not?

Our HB department do this a lot to elderly and we simply point out that backdating for one year is allowed, so if they wish to waste there time then carry on, they tend to allow any backdating once this is pointed out.

Both addresses are in the same LA area. The LA only suspended the claim and then cancelled once the change of address form was received. To me this means that she has a gap in her claim from Oct to Nov and if they were doing things right then she should be a new claim. I have tried to argue both your points they have just come back and said no to the over 60 rule.

Under what regulations have they refused..? Or are they just refusing based on their guidance...

Cant you threaten them with a Judicial Review...

Sorry if im talking rubbish - benefits is not my area... :-~

Margaret,

On the basis that a new claim was needed (and I question that), Bill is absolutely correct.

HBR(SPC) 64(1) applies. This is a mandatory provision - not discretionary. Definitely appeal.

Regards

I have just spoken to the LA again raising the points you have outlined. I have been told that although they suspended the claim they did not cancel it back to when her previous tenancy ended they have made it that she is a nil qualifier for that period as she did not inform them that she had moved.

Based on the facts given so far, the LA are just plain wrong. To make someone a "nil qualifier", they must have grounds (e.g. income too high / capital too high / no rent liability). There is no legal basis for simply deciding that someone is a "nil qualifier".

The only potential adverse effect of a late notification of a change of circs is if the change in beneficial to the clmt (i.e. the HB would increase). Normally, the higher HB would simply take effect from a later date than the actual date. But, even then, there is an exception to that rule which may be applicable in this case.

Assuming there is not more to this, I'll be happy to assist with the preparation of an appeal (no charge) if your client is looking to take this further. If this is of interest, just let me know below and I'll be happy to provide my contact details via the Congleton office.

Just one more thing - is the clmt in time for an appeal? My advice would be to get the appeal submitted ASAP (must be signed by the clmt). If you don't have grounds of appeal ready to submit immediately, get the appeal in anyway and state that grounds of appeal will follow.

Hope the above helps.

Hi everyone
Thanks for your help, I know that some of you replied to the LA on HB info as well.
They have now agreed to go back on the claim.