Hi all,

Just a quick one for the benefit processor staff. When you receive a RATS reply NHB8 or termination of JSA. The award period of JSA is shown, if the JSA is continuous and over the 26 weeeks qualifying period and can clearly see that it is. Would you just immediately award the HBRO as the conditions were satisfied for the claim period and it seemed common sense HBRO would be awarded?

Or would you want something else?

If the only info shown is about the 26 weeks, that is not sufficient.

The LA needs to be satisfied of other info in addition to the 26 weeks rule. For example; is the job full time? Will it last for at least 5 weeks? Was all the relevant info given to either the LA or DWP within one month?

If the NHB8 states "HBRO conditions satisfied", come LAs accept that; some don't. Unfortunately, NHB8s have a nasty habit of not being accurate when it comes to HBRO. I have personally seen many NHB8s stating HBRO satisfied, but it is readily obvious that a qualifying benefit (or combination) has not been in payment for 26 weeks....!

In some cases, NHB8s state "HBRO conditions not satisfied". Self-explanatory; but still with the proviso that the info could be wrong.

Hope the above helps.

Regards

Thank you Kevin.

Its just that i saw one recently "Jobseeker is in remunerative work". Thought that might of sufficed as a 'claimant in full time work'

Oh well more work for case officers trying to make claimants understand they are actually entitled to the extended payments.

Joy!

Therein lies part of the problem. Remunerative work is only one part of the equation - no way of knowing if it's for at least 5 weeks.

Hi Kevin.

I see where your coming from. Like you say more conditions need to be satisfied.

On another point, just wandering how an NHB8 would stand in a Tribunal hearing to award the extended payments. Looked at Schedule 5A Extended Payments of Housing Benefits last night and it seems that the conditions i Para 2 and Para 3 would be satified.

What do you think?

If the LA simply had a "policy" of refusing to pay EPs based on NHB8s, they may have difficulty in defending an appeal. But, if the LA was able to show that the NHB8 could not necessarily be relied on, I would expect the Tribunal to find accordingly.

On a more practical level, my advice is to either go direct to the LA in the first instance with the EP info, or, where only the DWP has originally been approached, explain to the LA that all info has been given to the DWP and ask the LA (nicely) to check with the DWP. If necessary, point out to the LA that the clmt only has to inform the DWP re EPs (all other changes should be reported directly to the LA - including the end of IS etc).

Regards