my client is currently living in a hostel. The local authority are now using the verification framework. As part of this, they are doing checks with residents in their hostle accommodation. My client was visited on 2 occassions but was not in. they asked him to arrange a new appt. He did not. He is a chaotic alcohol misuser. They have now said they have suspended HB payments as they cannot verify his claim unitl they see him in the hostel and check his identification. As far as I am aware, the VF is not legislation. My client has done what has been expected of him to satisfy the HB rules and has been on uninterupted HB since he moved in 18 months ago. Could they also not checked again via the remote access terminal to verify he still lived at this address. Are they right to suspend. Can we not ask them to pay on account. Grateful for any feedback.

CH/4390/2003 suggests that it is reasonable for a Council to confirm a claimant’s ongoing entitlement to benefit from time to time and to do this by means of a visit.It also confirms that where the claimant refuses a visit, the Council can suspend benefit.

Your best line of argument against the Council’s decision to suspend might be that the circumstances in the case you describe are not exactly the same as in the case in this decision. It does not appear that your client has refused a visit, only has not been in when visits were undertaken.

You might want to quote VF to the Authority, from para 8.303 of the Security Manual from the VF section.

“If a claimant refuses the LA entry to their property, or is not in when visited, the LA cannot simply refuse to pay benefit on this basis. Any decision as to entitlement must be made on the evidence available.”

I would argue that CH/4390/2003 was incorrectly decided. It was a CTB case and at the time residence for CTB purposes was synonymous with residence for the tax itself. I think the Commissioner thought of the appellant as something of a vexatious litigant and so gave him short shrift

There is no statutory power to require evidence in support of a claim to be given in person. This contrasts with the social security claims and payments regulations which specifically does give the power to the SOS to require that a claimant attend an interview for the purposes of supplying supporting evidence.

The lead case on this is still R v Liverpool City Council ex p Johnson (No2) 31 october 1994. Johnson was followed in R v LB Lambeth ex p Crookes 21 September 1995. It was held in both cases that the council could not refuse benefit on the sole ground that the claimant had refused to supply evidence in person.

I can supply you with a copy of Crookes if you specifically want to remind Lambeth Council of their past!!!!!!

And I've got the Johnson case if you want a copy of that as well.

thank you for the message..it would be helpful for that information..thank you........if u would like to send to email then its supersonic115@hotmail.com....or post on here depending on size of document.

I have emailed both Johnson and Crookes to you