Hi

Clt moved into property (on 11/4/05) as a single parent with 1 child and was claiming maternity pay, CTC, CB.
She did have a previous claim for TC with her partner - which was cancelled on 14/4/05.
She claimed IS and CTC from the 14/4/05 and this was payable from the 27th April 05.
HB have requested MR wages for the period 11/4/05 - 27/4/05. The Clt phoned HB to see why they are asking for his wages - and in the conversation the Clt stated the reason why they are not living as a couple is that they couldn't afford it!
HB have stated the couple have basically abused the HB system as they should have moved in as a couple.

I don't know if HB are going to refuse to pay HB for the period 11/4/05 - 27/4/05 or if they will assess the claim as a couple (as they have requested his wages)?

Does any one know how HB should assess this claim??

Whether or not they are a couple is a matter of fact.

If they did not move in as a couple that should be the end of it. The Council is not in a position to make judgements as to the whther or not they should have moved in as a couple. The only judgements that Counil should make is asto whether or not they did move in as a couple, or alternatively whether or not one of them is temporarily absent. Both of these are essentially determinations of fact

She should refuse to send in his wages as he is not her partner and so nothing to do with the claim.

The fact that the tax credit claim was ended on April 14 2005 is strong evidence supporting her contention.

If the council do decide that they are a couple and she appeals I very much doubt that it would reach a Tribunal because they appear to have no evidence to support their decision

If Income Support was only awarded from the 27/4/05 but she has made a claim from the date she moved in for HB, then it appears she did not qualify for IS for the period 11/4 - 26/4. This was either because she did not meet the entitlement conditions or her income was above her applicable amount. If the ex-partner was not in the property from the start of the tenancy then there would be no need for HB to see his wages slips for the period prior to the start of her IS award. However if the DWP treated them as a couple still until 27/4 then HB would follow suit and are correct in using his income as well for the period in question.Therefore I think you need to establish why IS was not awarded until the 27/4 ?

Stainsby has this right.

The clmt either has a partner, or does not, for the period prior to IS. There is no provision in the HB regs for citing "abuse" in this situation (assuming the "partner" is genuinely not part of the household and/or is not just temp absent etc).

While it may be of interest why IS did not start before 27 Apr 2005, the LA will still need to make their own judgement as to whether there was a partner or not.

Ironically, by saying that they SHOULD have moved in as a couple, the LA appear to be accepting that they were in fact NOT a couple.....

Regards

Should have added.....

I know of more than one "couple" who live apart because it is in their financial interests to do so - especially if one is on bens with child(ren) to support.

Typically, the situation is that he has his place, she has hers (genuinely). Sometimes, they spend time at each others property, but at no time are they living together as a couple.

So, this scenario is not so surprising to me.

Regards

With the greatest of respect for HB sections, it is not part of an HB officers job to pass comment on the morality of a client's personal life - in this case, the claimant is a single parent, and the claim should be taken on that basis.

I'm not too sure about it being financially advantageous for a couple to live seperately though - if, as you would expect, he is contributing a reasonable proportion of his income towards the upkeep of the child, then this is obviously income that she has to declare, for HB and other benefit purposes.

Additionally, they are both supposedly paying their own utility bills and other living costs on their respective addresses etc: I suspect that the absent father is the one that is financially better off in this arrangement - until that is the nice Lady from the CSA contacts him - should his ex partner have to claim I/S for any reason..........