Discussion archive

Top Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit topic #4244

Subject: "two homes CD" First topic | Last topic
Damian
                              

WRO(Health), Salford WRS
Member since
23rd May 2005

two homes CD
Wed 29-Nov-06 02:59 PM

I've seen a consultation thing on ammendments to reg 7 on two homes. It gives the backgrounds as being due to an "adverse" commissioners decision which they say produces a result contrary to the policy intention. Does anyone know what decision this is?

  

Top      

Replies to this topic
RE: two homes CD, Kevin D, 29th Nov 2006, #1
RE: two homes CD, BobKirkpatrick, 29th Nov 2006, #2
RE: two homes CD, Damian, 29th Nov 2006, #3

Kevin D
                              

Freelance HB & CTB Consultant/Trainer, Hertfordshire
Member since
20th Jan 2004

RE: two homes CD
Wed 29-Nov-06 03:55 PM

I suspect the CD in question is CSHB/0873/2005.

The crux is the application of HBR 7(6)(d)&(e). In my view, 0873 is only "adverse" if you conveniently ignore numerous other CDs. Further, there are very strong arguments to suggest that 0873 was wrongly decided.

The Cmmr managed to find that para d was retrospective in relation to the date when a person moved. In considering that para d was retrospective in 0873, the Cmmr actually relied on wording from para e. 0873 directly contradicts CSHB/0385/2005 where para d was analysed in detail (with legislation correctly quoted) and was found to be PROSPECTIVE only, not retrospective. 0385 is entirely consistent with at least half a dozen other CDs on related, relevant issues. Also worth noting that if para d is retrospective, then why does para e exist?

Very notably, 0385 was not (apparently) considered in 0873.

All the DWP need to do is challenge 0873, citing the existing authorities. There is no need for a law change. Unless, of course, the DWP think paras d & e can in fact be successfully challenged. In which case, they screwed up in the drafting of the regs. Either way, not impressive.

From an LA point of view, I'd have no concerns about defending an appeal where the appellant tried to rely on 0873. On the flip side, if I used 0873 for a clmt, I'd only expect to be successful if the LA and Tribunal simply didn't know of the other authorities. If the LA (or Tribunal) cited the other authorities, I'd expect to lose.

  

Top      

BobKirkpatrick
                              

Welfare Benefits adviser, Notting Hill Housing Trust, London
Member since
18th Feb 2004

RE: two homes CD
Wed 29-Nov-06 04:00 PM

Where did you see the consultation thing?

  

Top      

Damian
                              

WRO(Health), Salford WRS
Member since
23rd May 2005

RE: two homes CD
Wed 29-Nov-06 04:25 PM

Kevin - that sounds like the one. Can't find either of those on the net do you know where they are or have an electronic copy?

Bob - it was an email forwarded to someone who forwarded it to soemeone and so on. They intend to ammend the regs to "clarify" the meaning from next year. They are seeking vieews up to 5th December. If you give me your email address I will send it on to you.

  

Top      

Top Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit topic #4244First topic | Last topic