Has anyone else had problems with the 'Week-one-Yes" rule?
According to Zebedee Ward and Lister, "The week-one-yes rule applies only if the claimant or partner becomes liable for rent/council tax, and moves in, in the benefit week containing their 'date of claim'. In such cases, their first day of entitlement to HB/CTB is the day their liability for rent or countil tax begins (DWP circular HB/CTB A8/2006 appears to give different, wrong, advice on this point)"
Liverpool applied this rule until about a year ago but since then have refused to do so, and now only award benefit from the date of claim.
Anyone else experienced this?

Hope this helps


Note that from April 2006 the following rules apply;

The provisions of regulation 76(2) (working age) and 57(2) (pensioner) have not been amended which means that HB can still be awarded from the benefit week in which the tenancy started.

However, the provisions of regulation 80(3)(a) (working age)/61(3)(a) (pensioner) have been amended so that irrespective of the rent payment frequency, for the first benefit week of the claim HB can only be awarded for the days the person is occupying the home and liable to pay rent.

Therefore, if the tenancy began, for example, on the Thursday and the claimant moved in on the same day, the eligible rent for the first week would be four days of the daily rent.

If a new claim is made in the benefit week in which a new weekly liability begins and the tenancy starts on the Monday but the claimant does not move in until the Thursday, can HB still be awarded from the Monday?

The provisions of regulation 76(2) (working age) and 57(2) (pensioner) have not been amended which means that HB can still be awarded from the benefit week in which the tenancy started. However, the provisions of regulation 80(3)(a) (working age)/61(3)(a) (pensioner) have been amended so that irrespective of the rent payment frequency, for the first benefit week of the claim HB can only be awarded for the days the person is occupying the home and liable to pay rent. Therefore, if the claimant did not move in until the Thursday, the eligible rent for the first week would be four days of the daily rent.

The change to the provisions for determining the eligible rent for the first week of a new claim, where the tenancy starts in the same week as the claim is made, is in line with the policy that the date of change to the rent should be the effective date of the change. It also aligns the treatment of weekly and monthly rent liabilities.

When liability for Council Tax begins
If the date of claim is in same week as liability for Council Tax began (or before). CTB is awarded from the benefit week in which date of claim falls

Entitlement is on daily basis. (weekly entitlement / 7 x No of days)

Example 1

Clt makes a claim for HB/CTB on the 18th July 2002

Not a new tenant therefore HB/CTB are awarded from benefit week following his date of claim (22nd July)

Example 2

Clt moves to new house on 1st Aug 2002

Makes a claim for HB & CTB on 1st Aug 2002

If non weekly rent then HB would be awarded from 1st Aug

If weekly then HB would be awarded from 29th July (beginning of the week)

Council Tax Benefit in both cases would start from 1st Aug

Thanks for your reply. However this doesn't help because
1. According to my copy of Lorna Findley, regulation 80(3) was abolished not amended from 1/4/06;
2. Regulation 80(4)(a) seems to give the Week one yes rule just as described by Zebedee etc. Lorna Findley confirms this in her note on page 374 (2007/08 edition) which says '...multiplying the daily rent by the number of days for which the claimant is liable...'. I take liable to be different from occupying
This is different to what you say ('...HB can only be awarded for the days the person is occupying the home...' and '..in line with the policy that the date of change to the rent should be the effective date of the change...' - where did you get that from?

Sorry - lifted from HB section training manual! Assumed it to be correct as updated frequently. Will look at properly when have more time.

p.s. Sshhh - don't think they know I can view it!

That's probably what Zebedee etc were referring to when they said 'DWP circular ... appears to give different, wrong, advice on this point'!

Either the policy maker's haven't caught up with theri own rules yet, or they are not sufficiently versed in the intricacies of all this!

Alan; just to be sure of the circs, is it possible to offer an example, including the following:

- date on which liability commenced;

- date on which occupancy took effect;

- date on which claim was ACTUALLY received by the LA (or DWP);

- confirmation as to whether this query relates of an IS/JSA(IB) claim, or is a "standard" claim

I just want to be sure before responding fully.

Let's keep it simple. A Housing Association tenant is given a tenancy starting on Monday 8th September but doesn't move in until Friday 12th September and takes a Housing Benefit claim form to the Council's One-Stop-Shop on the same day (12th September)

I'm sure there are more complicted scenarios but it is the general principle we are interested in. We don't have one case in mind - there are hundreds

Fri 12-Sep-08 06:20 PM by Kevin D

That helps.

Tricky one. Initially, HBR 83(5) and HBR 76(2) *appear* to suggest that HB should start from Monday 8th Sept. BUT.....

Since HBR 80 was amended, many LAs have taken the view that the calculation of rent for the first week should be apportioned only for the days the clmt actually occupies the dwelling - i.e. Friday / Sat / Sun. So, in plain English, HB only starts from Friday 12th (technically, it starts from 8th, but is apportioned down). This approach is based on the wording of the current wording of HBR 80(3)(a), which directs how rent shall be assessed for any given week.

At first glance, the current version of HBR 80(3)(a) appears pretty innocuous and incapable of being so narrowly interpreted. It actually states:

In a case-
(a) to which regulation 76(2) or (3) (date on which entitlement is to commence) applies, his eligible rent for the benefit week in which he becomes liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling which he occupies as his home shall be calculated by multiplying his daily rent by the number equal to the number of days in that benefit week for which he is liable to make such payments;

It is the highlighted wording that LAs are relying on for "part week" payments. In other words, LAs are interpreting this as meaning that rent must be calculated as being allowable only for the period where the clmt has a liability AND is (actually) occupying the dwelling.

Personally, I think there *may* be some wriggle room in arguing that the requirement is only for the dwelling to be occupied at some point during the first week and that the provision is intended to address cases where the liability starts midweek. BUT, I wouldn't bet my house on the ultimate outcome of such a challenge......

"Sorry - lifted from HB section training manual!" - highlights the need for independent advice...

I don't have a house to bet, but the odds of a return are quite significant... The LA's interpretation is very suspect and, I might suggest, deliberately so... But that's OK, so long as they don't start jumping up and down when us welf's make up some intangible legal argument about something or other...

Just like to straighten things up. I and my colleagues operate independantly of the HB unit. My brief is to represent my clients absolutely, and this includes at HB tribunals.
I passed on something which I 'lifted' without reading fully, hence the apology.Only just found out I can access HB manual, and as their training budget is considerably higher than ours assumed it would be accurate!

We deal with around 15 LA's and what seems to happen depends if the tenant was claiming at a previous address. If so, then HB will pay at old address until they move out (and continue if period of notice applies) and then from the day they move into new property,so effectively a part week. If they are not claiming then HB will pay from the start of tenancy ie Monday, even if they do not move in until later in the week.
For an internal move, it is bit complicated, we would end one tenancy and start the other on same day, but if tenant does not move in at start of new one, then there is potential for shortfall on both.
I would be grateful if the situation could become a lot clearer.

A change of circumstances in Regulation 80(4)(b) refers to changes which are grounds for supersession. There can by definition be no grounds for supersession in the first week of an award. suc a change would be grounds for revison not supersesssion.

If the rent is on a weekly basis then if the claim is made in the week of first becoming liable, entitlement must be from the beginning of that week.

The argument that entitlement can only be paid from the day the person moves in if they move in mid week is spurious because inder Reg 7(1) a person can generally be treated as only occupying one dwelling as his home in any benefit week.

A move within the same borough is of course a change of circumstances which is grounds for supersession, but there may well be an unavoidable dual liability involved where a claimant moves mid week.

Rose,

Sorry - I was making a general observation rather than a criticism. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

tony

Thanks Tony,

Bit touchy today as overworked and DWP challenging yet another good tribunal decision for particularly vulnerable client!
I think there's room for all welfs, and different backgrounds equate to different strengths. Just glad of a forum like this so we can complement each other.

Rose