Continuous good cause but not continuous entitlement

Client has recently been awarded HB on review from 8/7/ 2012, after his claim was initially refused because the LA decided the tenancy was non commercial.  They now agree it was commerical and have also agreed he had continuous good cause for not claiming from January 2012 as a previous claim had been refused in that tenancy for the same reason, so he understandably thought he was not entitled.

However for the backdating period January - July 2012 he was on and off ibJSA with gaps in JSA entitlement. JSA was paid from 20/1/12 - 25/1/12, from 15/3/12 - 7/6/12 and from 2/7/12, but the LA have not paid him anything at all for the whole of January to July.  He tells me he was working FT during those periods when he was off JSA and although I don’t knoe his exact income I am guessing he didn’t have any entitlement to HB during those times (he is single and under 35, and FT work would take him way over the income limit even if it was minimum wage). 

But is there any way he could be paid for the periods he was on JSA? - e.g. could he argue that the claim made 2/7/12 should be treated as claims for the earlier periods, given the backdating request?  Am I missing something really obvious here?

Not certain it is quite so straightforward and far from certain Backdating is an issue here at all.

Looks like a claim was made and refused as non-commercial.

That decision has been revised and benefit now awarded. Backdating is not an issue as the original decision has been revised, there is no need for a backdated claim at all.

There is then the problem of your clients entitlement ending. This would normally require a new claim to start a new period of entitlement.

The only thing different here is that, due to the initial refusal, the whole process is retrospective. The question is therefore whether the fact that the whole thing is retrospective means that a new claim is not needed after a period of non entitlement?

My personal view is that, under the circumstances, a new claim is not needed but there are also strong arguments that one is needed.

Well - I have now found out exactly why they have not paid him - they have in fact decided he did NOT have good cause, but have missed out the crucial word ‘not’ on the decison letter - DOH!  The explanation of the decision was also worded in such way that I interpreted it as he had good cause for HB but not CTB, but it seems what she actually meant was he didn’t have good cause for the HB because he also didn’t claim CTB, even though he had been awarded this previously. So it’s now a straightforward case of another appeal, if he wants to go down that road. 

Anyway, as ever, thanks for the replies folks. 

<Nottsadvisor bangs head on desk a little and contemplates the need for theraputic cake.>