Hi all,

One of my colleagues had a client who was seeking advice regarding her award of Housing and Council Tax Benefits. As part of the work we tried to check client's entitlement to benefit but couldn't make the figures add up. Fortunately for us there was a non-dep charge included which just didn't add up (council tenancy rent charged over 24 fortnights a year so non-dep charge multiplied and divided accordingly).

My colleague has just heard back from the council about how this was calculated and they have advised that as there are 53 Mondays in this financial year benefit calculations have changed to reflect this.

Our reaction is 'whadya talking 'bout Willis?' - anyone any thoughts which differ from this out there in welf-land? If we're wrong in thinking that this is clearly an error please let me know soonest what the council decision is based on.

Thanks.

Mairi

Reg 80 of the HB Regs 2006 provides for HB to be calculated on a week to week basis.

How exactly is rent charged? Is it really 24 payments per year or is it in fact 1 payment every 2 weeks (ie every second monday). If it is the latter then eligible rent is worked out not by multiplying and dividing but simply by dividing by 2 (Reg 80(2)(a)). Does this second way of doing it make the figures add up correctly?

Martin.

Hi Martin,

It really is 24 payments per year based on an annual rent. We've always had to work out the rent charge on a weekly basis and then multiply by 52 and divide by 24 to reach the 'fortnightly' figure. These notifications have just come through and the figures don't relate to the usual 24 payments in the year.

Interestingly we've just been told that there may be a further 'free' week this year (there's usually 4 in a year)which would take us back to 24 rent periods in the financial year!!

I think we'll be appealing although if anyone's got any ideas on alternatives they would be gratefully received.

Mairi

Mairi,

As suggested in my earlier post, HBR 81(3) makes specific provision for a "53 week" period. Based on the info given, I'm not sure how an appeal could succeed. If the period of the rent charge is annual, but split into 24 fortnightly instalments, the LA is entitled to assess HB on the basis of EITHER a 52 week, OR (where appropriate), a 53 week period.

A few years ago, there was a case where it was argued that HB should be averaged over the whole 52/53 week period. And, that argument was upheld by the Cmmr. BUT, HBR 81 was almost instantly amended to give the effect originally intended - i.e. HB should only be averaged over the weeks that were not rent free weeks. This means it will be correct for HB to be assessed on the basis of 52 (or 53) weeks divided by 48 weeks.

Hope the above isn't too confusing.

Is this not just a "rent free weeks" case?

It's quite usual for LAs to have a "53 week" year to realign the first week of the financial year to the beginning of April in the next year.

This is clearly envisaged within HBR 81(3)(a) which makes specific provision for a "53 week" year for cases where there are so-called rent free weeks.

So, on this occasion, there is a good chance that "Willis" is talking sense .

Regards

I recall being told that this was one of M Thatchers direct inputs into benefits law.

She was told that tenants with rent free weeks could receive HB for weeks when they didn't pay rent (at e.g. 48/52nds or 48/53rds of the weekly rent normally paid) even if they were only claiming for 2 weeks in a rent free period. When she heard that, she insisted that people should only get benefit in weeks when rent was paid. That meant of course that all the nice sums like non-deps, income etc had to be squeezed in and worked out at 52/48ths or 53/48ths during the rent-payable weeks.

There were, for quite a long time, large numbers of HB systems which couldn't do these sums and carried on doing the 48/52nds kind of sums (I believe there still are a couple around). We regularly got calls on our helpline from people saying "Why are your figures different from the ones our real system produces" and they often took a lot of persuading.