I'm assisting a client whom mutually exchanged before getting written permission from her landlord. She was visited by the housing officer one week after the mutual exchange took place and was advised that she must return to her property as the assignment had not been completed and she had no rights to the new property. A notice to quit was issued and she sought advice from us.

We advised that she must return to her property but we would contact the LA to see if discretion could be used to allow the mutual exchange to continue as she had decorated the property and new carpets had been layed. The housing manager advised that he would look into the case and get back to us. We continually chased up the housing manager to no avail and our client returned to the property 6 weeks following her illegal mutual exchange.

Housing benefit has refused to allow the temporary absence payment for the 6 weeks on the grounds that she did not intend to return. We argue that the intention to return was there because she had been advised in the first week of leaving the property that she was a trespasser and would have to return. The delay in returning was due to the housing manager returning our calls and our client arranging removals.

The case will now go for appeal, has anyone had a similiar problem?

Intention to return means a settled intention. You may find some mileage in the Court of Appeal case Hammermith and Fulham LBC v Clarke (2000). I will send a copy to rightnet for publication

thanks to stainsby ... here it is -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/H_&_F_LBC_v_Clarke.pdf

Many thanks - the court of appeal case is very helpful!