Rather unusual case here and I'd be glad of some thoughts.

Client is living in the same property as ex wife, ex wife is charging rent for this but it is not the property they occupied when they were married.

HB has been refused on the grounds that they have not yet had a decree absolute and are therefore a couple. (judges are still deciding on a finacial settlement before granting the 'absolute')

If they had never been married but were previously cohabitees the question of a legal confirmation that they were no longer a couple wouldn't arise, (it would simply be a question of supporting the assertion with evidence). As the property was never their home whilst they were a couple might he actually be entitled to HB?

I know I' ve probably missed something obvious (its last thing on Thursday and my brain went off line about an hour ago!) but if anyone has any thoughts as to the clients entitlement (or not) to HB I would be grateful.

Presumably the LA has decided that the two people are members of the same household and because they are legally married they have to be treated as a couple. The relevant regulation - 2(1) would support that. But if they are clearly two separate households then the legal status of their marriage would be irrelevant.

You're right about the slightly contrasting position with co-habitees, but the regs are slightly different with regard to couples with a legally defined relationship (marriage or civil partnership).

I suspect the key point to argue is the "separate households" one. Has the LA actually considered that point?

Mon 29-Sep-08 12:18 PM by Tony Bowman

I can't see that you've missed anything. Even though they are still married, to be treated as a couple, the council will have to show they are members of the same household (see s.137 SSCBA). I'll wager they haven't even asked the relevant questions!!

I had a similar case some while back and it was very good at demonstrating the blinkered and unhelpful approach LA's often take in these type of situations.

If I were you, I would prepare for the possibility that the LA will alter their argument to one of 'contrived tenancy' or 'non-commercial'.

(hadn't seen Andy's post when I hit 'submit')

Thanks for this, the client is going to re apply as the original appeal period expired some while ago.

late appeal...?