client's HB suspended due to above. She was visited at home and they had a good nosey around but came up with no evidence of son residing with mum. I've asked on what grounds they've suspended but they've not replied. Obvious rent and council tax arrears now. Somewhere in the murky depths of my memory I seem to recall a post about this. To save me trawling through all resources can anyone help please ?

Cheers
Sue

If they have no evidence of the son living at the address then they have no reasonable cause to suspend benefit and there is no requirement whatsoever for the son to give his address if he has nothing to do with the claim. Threaten a complaint/JR...hsould at least prompt a response because I suspect there is more to this one tht meets the eye..either that or all semblance of rational administration has now evaporated into the ether.

Am assuming the son is non dependant?

Yup, this is what they're alleging. He definitely has a completely kosher address but says it's the principle and won't divulge it unless it really becomes necessary (eg mum being threated with possession because of rent arrears). Jr threat it is then seeing as they won't answer my letters even though reminders have gone. I'll leave it until Monday morning when I'm feeling more evil

Response from LA investigations re the suspension. Recommending claim be closed because client failed to provide information (re son's address). If son refuses to allow mum to give the info this is an unreasonable decision. Anyone know of CD's or other info please? I've been sifting through but thought if someone already knows then it'd save me some precious time.

Many thanks

There are a couple of CDs on occupancy where it was found that the LA did not have to demonstrate a clmt lived at other addresses in order to show that there was, or wasn't, occupancy for the address that was the primary concern for the HB claim (from memory - CH/3016/2005? is one of them). I've not had time to check for relevance, but there are a couple of non-HB CDs where the occupancy of a non-dep was at issue: CSIS/0100/1993 & CIS/14850/1996 (starred 18/97).

There is also a further CD where it was found that the test for evidence requested by an LA is what is REQUIRED to make a decision - not necessarily the ability to supply the evidence (para 11 of CH/4688/2003).

Regards

you're a star Kevin

Kevin, sorry to be a pain but I can't find CH/3016/2005. Is it the right number?

Having gratuitously wallowed in being called a star, it's now only fair to point out that not all the CDs mentioned necessarily support your client's position......

As for CH/3016/2005.... Yes, it's the correct ref. However, it was only issued with "Information Issue 02 06" - circulated only to LAs.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to e-mail until the weekend, and the CD is 6 pages long. If you can wait until then, I'd be happy to mail it (an e-mail addy would help....). In the meantime, the paras in question are reproduced below (no assumptions should be made as to context in the absence of the rest of the CD):

----------------------------------
15. Mr Stagg argued that a claimant who was not homeless must have a residence and must normally occupy a property as a home. I reject that argument. It may as a matter of fact often be correct that a person who is moving between properties has one of them as a residence and normally occupies one of them as a home. However, Mr Stagg’s argument went further than that. I do not consider that it is correct as a matter of language. There is nothing in the concepts of occupation or residence, in general or in the context of this legislation, that justifies it. The implication of the argument, spelt out by Mr Stagg, was that the local authority had to decide which of the properties where the claimant had any connection was normally occupied by him as his home and was his residence. I reject that also. A claimant makes a claim for housing benefit and council tax benefit in respect of particular property. The only duty for the local authority is to decide whether the claimant is entitled in respect of that property. It is not required to undertake a wider consideration in order to identify a property that the claimant normally occupies as a home or serves as the claimant’s residence.

16. Mr Stagg referred to regulation 5(2) in support of his argument. That provision certainly entitles and requires a local authority to take account of other dwellings occupied by the claimant. It ensures that the local authority does not concentrate on the property in respect of which the claim is made in isolation from any other property occupied by the claimant. But it does not support Mr Stagg’s argument that the claimant must be normally occupying some property as his home. Indeed, it expressly provides that other properties are to be considered for the purpose of determining whether a property (which must mean the property in respect of which the claim is made) is normally occupied as the claimant’s home.

---------------------------------------
CH/3016/2005 was heard by Commissioner Edward Jacobs.


Regards

Thanks once again Kevin. I've been a bit cheeky and asked the LA to fax me a copy of the CD and they've promised it should arrive this afternoon. Any problems and I'll get back to you.

Sue

sue, when you say they had a good nosey around, did they inspect every room of the house and look in cupboards and drawers? i have an elderly disabled claimant who was very upset by this, and questions about the circs of all her adult children, none of whom live with her, but they needed 'to build a family tree'. she gets AA and it wouldn't have made any difference if they did live her...

that's a new one on me jj - building a family tree, gawd where did that one come from? I'd bet they wouldn't have come up with such patronising c**p with someone with a bit more 'dole savvy'. Did you complain?

As far as my client goes, I didn't go into detail, she just told me they'd had a good look round. Why do you ask?


Kevin, They've faxed the CD so have no need to bother you again. cheers

Sue

client's daughter's came to me specifically to find out if the investigator 'is allowed' to do what this one did - the old lady was ill after the visit and her 4 kids are alarmed and angry about their mother's treatment and the questions about themselves - none of them are part of her claim, all are householders. have complained and await reasonable response. : )

it appears that an 'audit ' of client's life was carried out, as well as the virtual search of her home. if they think somebody is living with her, why inspect bank statements and passport? she is not part of the authority's administrative systems.

i don't know in this particular case if GMS was involved, but i'm getting bad vibes about data matching, the NFI, and local government exempting itself from the Data Protection Act and am interested in the national picture...

slightly tangentially, you can call me old-fashioned, but i felt a shudder of distaste when i realized the audit commission is marketing a data match service to private pension funders which is basically harvesting dates of death from DWP records, which the audit commission will search for matches (occ.pens paid after death), using its 'fraud prevention' access, for a fee, to do what the law prevents the private company from doing for itself. i didn't think public service was supposed to work that way...

then again, i felt extremely bothered that the new Home Secretary is saying 'watch the asylum seeker birdie', whilst the Home Office is REFUSING TO APOLOGIZE for its criminal records agency giving ahem 1500 admitted false criminal records to innocent citizens.

i actually saw a client today (about his son's DLA refusal-learning difficulties are not a medically defined condition...) who mentioned in passing that two or three years ago he was given a shocking criminal record by the CRA when he applied for a job, belonging to someone with the same name but different date of birth. said he didn't sleep for a fortnight, and had to go the the police station and provide finger prints - then received the above explanation and an apology and got his record cleared...doesn't know what happened to his finger prints though...but i digress...: )