|
admitting up front i'm not exactly on familiar terms with housing benefits regs 69 and 70, this news item has left me scratching my head.
Isn't there something objectionable about the DWP's "To make sure that the regulations reflect what we wanted
to happen originally, we hope to amend the legislation and
have amending regulations in place within the next few weeks"?
Deputy Commissioner Mark's decision seems sound as a pound to me, and i'm surprised to learn that this wasn't the approach that was already being taken. What is the DWP's problem with it, that it seeks to change the regs?
as someone who can remember when rent was paid in supp. ben assessments, our LA had 4 'rent-free' weeks a year, so the rent calculation was the weekly rent times 48 divided by 52. (can't remember what we did in 53- week years,) but it was the annual rent liability divided by 52 weeks, just as the Commissioner determined.
the effect of the above was that the claimant received slightly less than his weekly rent payments, catching up in the 'rent free' weeks.
this method had administrative benefits - order books could be issued easily without troublesome (and costly) changes of benefit assessments, or having to have books back in for adjustment in those weeks - very inconvenient for claimants and benefit staff.
it's worth remembering that the origins of the 'rent-free' weeks also related to administrative needs - the rent free weeks coincided with two bank holiday weeks and the two main weeks in the summer holiday period.
most important of all, remember that the term 'rent-free' is a jargon term, handy to use, but does not necessarily mean 'rent-free' at all. in cases where there is a continuous (annual) liability for rent, but varied arrangements for payment, the term is inaccurate and misleading, and the distinction between liability and arrangements for meeting the liability an important one. ( how many regular tenancy agreements does anyone here see with stop/start rent liability and genuine rent- free occupancy periods? where did all these altruistic landlords come from?) the commissioner's decision gets to the real meaning of the phrase, finding it didn't apply here.
it could be that reg 70 is a bad reg in the first place and in need of amendment, but two things are bothering me, and maybe i have the wrong end of the stick here, but...
where the DWP say "This would result in increasing rent arrears throughout the year which could only be paid off with HB received in the rent free weeks." - does this mean the objection is based on fear of rent arrears hitting against performance targets? and
where the Commissioner says -
"9. Weekly income is then calculated in accordance with regulation 25. and is not subjected to an artificial uplifting by reference to a notional 46 week year, as the local authority has done to date to counterbalance its eligible rent calculations over the same period. Thus using the calculations of the local authority at the top of page S156, if the council’s basic figures are correct, the claimant’s weekly income would be £204.50 per week over 52 weeks and not the artificially inflated £231.17 over 46 weeks." it appears that the claimant, when subjected to the LA's calculation, was losing a lot of money which the primary legislation intended he would be entitled to...
sooo...does anyone know what this amendment is all about?
jj
|
