A nearby local authority has a "homeless prevention team" that gets involved whenever someone approaches the LA for homeless assisstance. In some situations, for example, where a young person is about to be kicked out of home, the HPT sometimes offers payments to the householder to keep the homeless person on, at least in teh short term. (cheaper than B+B I guess). I'm not really sure whether this is viewed just as an incentive or as a form of help with rent outside the HB scheme.

Should these payments be taken into account for meanstested benefits? Not sure if they would be classed as voluntary payments which are disregarded (now for IS as well as HB) or as income from a lodger in which case they are taken into account subject to disregards. Opinions on a postcard please....

All LA's with homelessness responsibilities have the power to make these payments, often from a Homelessness Prevention Fund, also known ans 'Invest to Save' policies. They will be payments under the Housing Act and don't appear to be specifically disregarded anywhere.

'Voluntary payments' would now be the best option (complete disregard) but the 'Doncaster' or 'Boulton' case could be a problem since the LA clearly gets something back (not having to rehouse the person).

Going through Sch.9, IS Regs - since it's not housing benefit, para.27, Sch.9, IS Regs might be a possibility, depending on the facts. If there is an HB shortfall (wouldn't apply to parents) para.30 Sch.9 could apply. Para.18 is no good since it only covers payments from the resident. Paras 19 and 20 could apply but aren't much help.

Para.27 might still be the best bet.

Richard Atkinson
Senior Adviser
Wirral Welfare Rights Unit

Richard

Many thanks for your suggestions. Para 27 is certianly very interesting. I must admit that I had dismissed it as applying to situations such as short term fostering but looking at it again I can see that it might just fit the bill. The snag is going to be arguing that the person concerned is "not normally a member of the claimant's household" but I guess it might be possible to argue that "membership" of the household ceased when the "parents" end the licence i.e. telling the "child" that they have to leave, but whether this gets over the "NORMALLY a member.." provision could be tricky IMO.

Thanks again.