Hi all
I've posted before about this client and we have now reached a dead end with LA and have appeal papers in.
The situ is this- following ongoing harrassment from neighbours including serious threats of violence and a burgulary client left tenancy. She initially gave in notice but was advised to withdraw and seek exchange.
She followed this advice and stayed with mum while awaiting exchange to go through. Exchange match then fell through (found out about harrassment) and client still felt unsafe to return (threats on mob and through friends)
She then pursued an emergency which after a few months finally happened. She was liable for rent throughout (just shy of 52 weeks)
HB say not eligible since
a. No intention to return
b. Violence was not in property or from former partner/family.

Our arguement is that she intended to return in that she maintained contact with Landlord with regards tenancy and would have returned had it been safe to do so. Also she feared violence within tenancy- threats were they were going to get her at night etc and burgulary was obviously within home.

Any ideas suggestions would be apprecaited, doesn't appear to be anything that defines what "violence in home" is or intention to return clearly.

Many Thanks

Fear of violence in the home will extend to communal areas of a block of flats or the gerden of a house, but it will not extend to the road outside see para 16 of CIS 543/1993

!In paragraph 4(6)(a) “dwelling” must be interpreted in accordance
with the meaning given to the phrase “dwelling normally occupied
as the home” in regulation 2(1) of the Income Support Regulations . Thus the dwelling may extend, for instance, to the garden of a house or the common parts of a block of flats. However, it cannot extend to adjacent roads or areas to which any member of the public has access in that capacity."

If the threats are from neighbours and she feared that the burglers may have inflicted violence, then there is a good case for showing a fear of violence in the home.

You do havwe a problem over intention to return as the there is some authority for the premise that the intnetion should be unqualified (see CIS908/1992, CIS484/1993)

I would seek to distinguish those cases by arguing that they were not decided in the context of fear of violence, and it is not possible to show an unqualified intention to return when in such fear.

I agree with Stainsby and offer this in addition.

It could be you were simply trying to be brief and concise with your post, but I picked up what you said the LA had refused HB on - re no violence in the home.

If that is an accurate reflection of the LAs explanation, they are wrong. It is not relevant whether or not there is or has been violence. The issue is FEAR of violence (in the home). Based on the limited information given, I agree you seem to have a good case (subject to intention). It would help your case if you have any Police reports / log nos etc.

Best of luck.

Regards
Kevin D