Cmmr / Judges have increasingly pointed out the danger(s) of arguing facts by way of analogy from CDs/judgements.
However, this may help. Based on the facts stated, the relevant legislation appears to be HBR 7(16)(x)&(17). In short, the clmt is treated as still occupying the dwelling for a maximum of 52 weeks (not 3 months) if ALL of the following is satisfied:
a) the clmt must intend to return to the dwelling within 52 weeks (such intention being positively satisfied, genuine and realistic; a desire is insufficient).
b) the dwelling must not be sublet during any part of the temporary absence
c) the clmt must have "...left the dwelling he occupies as his home through fear of violence, in that dwelling, or by a person who was formerly a member of the family of the person first mentioned..."
If the clmt did in fact intend to return (assuming the other requirements are met), HB is payable irrespective of whether s/he sought accommodation elsewhere. The "intention" must be judged on a week-by-week basis. For example, if the clmt didn't intend to return during weeks 1-3, no HB is payable for those weeks. But, if circumstances were such that the clmt changed his/her mind and intended to return from week 4, HB is payable from week 4.
If the clmt did not, initially, intend to return, HBR 7(10) may apply and HB may still be payable for upto 4 weeks so long as the liability was unavoidable.
relying on the facts relevant in decisions
|