|
The legal provision is in regulation 5 HB regs.
Reg 5(a) provides that where a person has left home for DV they can be treated as liable for rent on two homes if it is reasonable and the person intends to return to the former home;
Reg 7A allows for payments where the liability on the old property is unavoidable, but only for four weeks. There is not specified any intention to return and there is no mention of any liability in respect of any second home, so it seems as though 7A is designed as a basic four-week safety net for DV victims;
Reg 8B is concerned with temporary absences and provides for a person being treated as liable during a temporary absence of up to 52 weeks. In DV cases, this only applies if either 5(a) or 7A does not apply.
We have to apply either 5(a) or 7A first, so in your case, when the person left, there was an intention to return and a liability on a second property and so 5(a) applies. At the point that the person stopped intending to return they could no longer take advantage of 5(a) so we go to 7A.
By my reading, 7A applies for four weeks from the date the claimant left the first property and becuase there are no other caveats attached to it, it would still apply for the 1 remaining week in your example. I think, though not certain, that using 7A would still allow payment in respect of both homes.
8B doesn't apply at all as 1) there is (was) a dual liability and 2) there is no intention to return.
You can't take advantage of the other rule on HB on two homes for four weeks because their is a requirment (reg 6(a)) that the liability on the new home arose before moving in - which most likely would not be met in DV cases (probably accounting for the existence of 7A).
|
