I am having a debate with my Housing Benefit Section at present and any help would be great.

They are stating that if a clients circumstances change for any reason, a new Housing Benefit form needs to be filled.

I work in a Homeless Dept and regularly have clients moving accommodation - sometimes up to 5/6 times before they settle. My argument is that they should only have to fill in a Change of Circumstances form not a whole new form. The only changes are to their address and rent.

Housing Benefit say that a new HB form has to be filled in every time - very time consuming for myself and the client.

Any ideas??

Oh dear, looks like the LA you are having problems with has just appointed someone who has just graduated from the ‘regs, what regs, we don’t use those regs here, we have policy’ school of management…

Under no circumstances do people have to complete a new claim form on change of circs ! The change of circs regs (HB) are at reg 68 of the main HB regulations, and regs 4 to 9 of the HB/CTB (Decisions & Appeals) regs, (regs 4 to 6 actually deal with revision, but for the purposes of this post, I will treat revisions and supersessions as one in the same, even though legally they are different). Reg 4 (8) of the D&A regs requires that “an application for revision shall be made in writing”. That wording is reproduced at reg 7 (7) of the D&A regs for supersessions. There is also no requirement in the primary legislation for a new claim.

However, the D&A regs above are made under para’s 3 & 4 of Schedule 7 to the CSPSSA 2000 which is the primary legislation. Those paras require CofC’s to be notified “on an application made for the purpose <…>”. I’ll bet that some ‘bright spark’ at your LA has read that and made a ‘policy’ decision. However the HB/CTB D&A regs made under this section give effect to this provision, and are clearly not ‘ultra-vires’. The LA is however giving strict interpretation of “application made for the purpose”.

I would argue that the LA are however making the claimant (and their advisors such as your good-self), ‘jump through hoops’ and are being over-zealous in the extreme. Whilst I know of no Commissioners’ decisions on this specific subject, Commissioner’s decision CH/999/2002 at paragraph 16 might assist you, “But he has not argued that it would have been impossible or unduly burdensome for him to comply with the requirements”. I would certainly argue that the requirement to complete a new benefit form to inform of CofC’s is burdonsome in the extreme.

Your LA are also confusing law. A new claim is needed only to comply with the requirements of S.1 of the SSAA ‘92. Once a claim has been made, it does not need to be made again. This is now even more correct since April 2004 with the abolition of benefit periods in HB/CTB, as renewal forms are no longer needed. Perhaps your LA has a large stockpile of benefit renewal forms they are trying to ‘recycle’ rather than throw away? A silly suggestion I know, but not as silly as the idea that the LA are actually trying to be serious….

If the LA will not change it’s position, the only way to proceed is to go to TAS on each and every case, (by also requiring a long and complex form, they are also arguably increasing the time taken to notify a the LA of a 'beneficial' CofC, and the LA is therefore deliberatly increasing the risk of the claimant falling foul of the requirement to notify a CofC within 1 month, and the possibility to the benefit claimant losing entitlement to benefit as a result. The actions of the LA might therefore also breach Articles 8, 14 and Article 1 of the 1st Protocol of the HRA ’98). I do not think that the Ombudsman would get involved in this, as this is very messy law stuff, carrying the right of appeal to TAS, but it might be worth considering…

In the past, the Audit Commission's "performance indicators" meant that a change in address (even within the same property) had to be treated as a new claim so this may be where this idea of needing a new form came from which, it must be said, was common practice.

However, the end of benefit periods in April 2004 has firmly clarified that there is no need for a new claim to be made for a change in address within the same borough. These should be treated as changes in circumstances as you suggest. This is good news from an administrative point of view and many LA's are issuing short forms or other documents such as special letters which just ask the relevant questions (details about the new address for instance). The ONLY problem (see Circular A17 / 2004) is the suggestion that without a new claim, a payment on account cannot be made pending a Rent Service decision. Of course, a new claim does not necessarily have to mean a new form because it is up to each local authority to decide what written form is sufficient (reg 72 (1) ).

I have contacted my local Housing Benefit office with regard to the hb circular A17/2004. I have been informed that they are having ongoing discussions on how to treat the way they handle these new requirements. I have been advised that until such time as the report from recent meetings is available, a housing benefit application has to be completed, where the change of circumstances is that of a change of address. They will however not require the claimant to provide evidence of income, if they already have this information. I have to be provided with a copy of the report by the senior housing mamagers outlining the process by which and how these cases have to be handled in the future.
I would be grateful to anyone who is working in an authority, which has introduced the changes could give me an example of the method used for gathering the information required to continue the claim. It will be useful for me so that I can compare it to what my own authority introduce.
my email address is wullie@drumchapelcreditunion.co.uk or to fax me on 0141-944-8596.

I wouldn't bother trying to argue with Circular A17, it has caused headaches for many LA's and they will be struggling to come to terms with the abolition of benefit periods for a while yet, (see recent issues of HB Direct). Just insist that the apply the law!

Circular A17 is all well and good, but it is not the law! The LA can not make people apply again, as the law has been changed. The LA can however, conduct reviews, and then suspend benefit where people do not respond or take part in the review.

Commissioner's decision CH/3853/2001 put the use of circulars in their place... para 20 reads... "The Circulars issued by the Department of Social Security (now the Department for Work and Pensions) alert local authorities to the state of the law from time to time. They explain why it has been amended and contain explanatory material and examples of how the law works. No doubt, they are very useful to the decision-makers in local authorities, who have to understand and apply the legislation. However, they are not, and do not purport to be, binding on local authorities. The appeal tribunal had to apply the law. So did the local authority. Neither was bound by anything in the Circulars".

Para 23 reads "<...> There is little chance of the tribunal being misled and treating them as binding, but they can confuse claimants, who may assume that their provenance gives them an authority that they do not have".

As for actual guidance on the use of reviews by local authority's, and the abolition of benefit periods, I think that you might have to await a Commissioner's decision on that before we have any real guidance, but I hope that this post at least gives you a way of challenging an LA who insists on making people apply again!

My advice would be not to get gungho and start refusing to complete new claim forms.

Whilst it may be right that a new claim is not required for a change of address that does not change the fact that LA's can request information from claimants (Reg 73 of HB Regs) and if that info is not provided can go on to suspend (and eventually terminate) an award-see Reg 13 of the HB&CTB D&A Regs.

Far easier (and less hassle) for your clients to do as asked and give in the new forms, rather than risk a decision under Reg 13......

I agree with Martin's commonsense approach to this. I would guess that a great many LA's are still issuing claim forms for changes of address - why? - because it's the only document they've got on which to gather the information they need to process the change of circs. Obviously it is important that LA's distinguish between the legal process which is actually being gone through and the bit of paper they happen to be collecting the information on (well, OK, several bits of paper).

I agree that it should not treated as a new claim, I agree that claimants should not have to verify all their income and capital again (or even fill those bits of the form in again), and, yes I agree, it is desirable that LA's do eventually get around to sorting a specific shortened form for this. But a form of some sort has still got to be completed, and if it is a private tenant moving house, the form is not going to be that much shorter is it?

Not sure it's worth going to war over.

With regard to my previous posting, there have been meetings between senior housing managers regarding the change of address requirements. No decision has been reached as to the method of collecting the information to process the H.B. claims when it is only a change of address. I have been informed that everything is to remain as at present, with a new H.B. application to be completed, but if income details are already held, then the claim will be processed without the need to seek further information from the tenant.
They are expecting a H.B. circular to be made available shortly, which will outline the new procedures and the method of information collection.