I have a client who has been in hospital for a long time. She met with support staff while still in hospital and signed a tenancy to begin on May 15th. She has been gradually moving in as part of a planned programme i.e. she moved belongings in on May 15th and has since spend time in her home which has gradually increased. She still returned to hospital but the number of nights at a time spent in her home has increased over time. She is now "fully moved in" and is not returning to hospital. Her mother is now terminally ill so she is at her parents' home. HB do not have all the information they need to process the claim and have extended the deadline twice for receipt of this.We now have a final deadline of July 31st but may not be able to provide all info required in the client's absence.

Issues
1. When is someone deemed to have moved in. What are the criteria?
2. I have suggsted to HB that her returns to hospital were "temporary absences". Is this a realistic argument?
3. Is there anything we can do re keeping the claim valid while we try to get the information required by HB?

Would apprciate any guidance.

You will not be surprised that there is no definition of "normally occupied"

1. There is no hard and fast rule - the issues to consider are:

claimants centre of interest
amount of time spent at the property (not necessarily nights)
the reason for absence
items of furniture/belongings
etc

You may want to consider R(H) 9/05 - clearly the client is not going to consider a hospital as her "normal home" - as soon as she has signed the tenancy, moved personal belongings - her home is the new home that she is liable to make payments on.

2. Yes argue that these are temporary absences from her home.

3. Keep asking for extensions. It would appear reasonable to do so.

Based on the facts given, I would tend to agree that occupation has occurred and that absences are temporary.

HOWEVER, the above assumes that the clmt had no liability in respect of her "old" home - that would bring the 2-homes rules into the picture and my response would, potentially, be substantially different.

Just a couple of general observations:

"centre of interest" - this is not the correct test for HB purposes and, therefore, should not be relied on. This term and "normally occupying" were considered in CH/1786/2005 - on www.osscsc.gov.uk

By all means ask for extensions of time limits for providing info, but I'd make sure a full explanation is given as to why there is a continuing delay in providing the information / evidence etc. Extensions of the time limit are discretionary, and it a judgement call by the LA as to whether it is reasonable to extend the time limit.

Regards