Hi all. case where client could originally afford the rent, but only because her mother contributed half of the rent. Mum lives in Holland, can evidence that she did send money each month to pay half the rent. Mum now ill, stopped working for the forseeable future.

client claimed HB and rent restricition applied immediately. Was thinking of arguing that LA should delay restriction for 1st 13 weeks on basis client could afford rent when she entered tenancy. When it says claimant could afford rent, would the above parental contribution count or would LA see it that claimant could not actually afford rent in the 1st place? The more i read the less convinced i am that this argument will work.

have advised client re DHP's.

I think you have a good argument.

The payments sent by the mother would have been treated as the claimant’s income if the HB claim had been made whilst they were being received.

As they formed part of the claimant’s income there is no reason at all why they should be ignored in deciding if the claimant could meet the financial commitment of the rent.

The legislation says that "the person was able to meet the financial commitments...". It does not qualify that. As long as the person was able it should not matter how they were able (as long as they did not depend on HB). If the legislator had meant 'without assistance from another' then s/he could easily have said "the person was able to meet the financial commitments from his or her own resources...".

That would be the argument I would run anyway.

Thanks. Have already made the request and will run with that argument if i need to, i suspect I will!