We have a tenant who has moved out of our young persons hostel.She gave us the required 28days notice on 29th November 2006. As far as we know she has moved in with her boyfriend. The LA has decided that her HB should end from 4th December as she told them she had no intention to return. The room at the hostel is still empty. Are we wrong to think that they should pay the period of notice?

By the way this is not the same LA as I was talking about in my question on Mutual Exchange.

Reg 5a allows HB to be paid for an unavoidable liability at the old address for up to 28 days. Note that the commitment must be unavoidable. As far as I can see, the intention to return shouldn't have any bearing in this case.

Just for info, the reg is now HBR 7(7) <2006 regs etc>.

Also, one other point that is often overlooked in relation to this provision.

It can only apply if the clmt is NOT liable to make payments in respect of the new dwelling. If the clmt is in fact liable, HB CANNOT be paid under HBR 7(7).

Other than that, I agree with Lostdog's post.

Regards

Should have added....

If there is dual liability, the normal 2-homes rule applies <HBR 7(6)(d)>. The test about whether dual liability could reasonably have been avoided still applies.