truconstruct Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Well he is and he reckons it is all above board. I beg to differ. Please let there be a hb expert on here! He needs to be reported if its true, but are sure its not a wind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouFo666 Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Just as a side note, anyone that has been turned down for housing benefit or council tax benefit in the past because they are just over the threshold limit, have a look into claiming again if you have kids as the child allowance is no longer part of the calculation and you may be able to claim .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sazaboo Posted May 20, 2010 Author Share Posted May 20, 2010 ................................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Well he is and he reckons it is all above board. I beg to differ. Please let there be a hb expert on here! I'm afraid he is! The following is a summary of a decision made ny Commissioners which quite clearly indicates those people in receipt of JSA Income Based are for Housing Benefit purposes as possessing no capital. "the tribunal's decision was not perverse (paragraph 19); 2. the effect of ex parte Menear was limited to requiring a housing benefit decision-maker to treat a person on income support or income-based JSA as having no income or capital and therefore automatically entitled, from the financial point of view, to housing benefit (paragraph 36);" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ofTheseDays Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 The thread title reads like some sort of chav slogan...HOUSING BENEFIT RULEZ!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I'm afraid he is! The following is a summary of a decision made ny Commissioners which quite clearly indicates those people in receipt of JSA Income Based are for Housing Benefit purposes as possessing no capital. "the tribunal's decision was not perverse (paragraph 19); 2. the effect of ex parte Menear was limited to requiring a housing benefit decision-maker to treat a person on income support or income-based JSA as having no income or capital and therefore automatically entitled, from the financial point of view, to housing benefit (paragraph 36);" That decision only applies to a situation where a couple have split, and was also related to the fact that the property was inhabited by both members of the couple, albeit in separate households. This is someone who owns a property which is empty, nobody else's domicile and it is (seemingly) reasonable for him to live there, yet he lives in a different property. Also if it is Housing Benefit (and not Local Housing Allowance), it would be for a property in social housing, for which an element of priority needs to be assessed. Owning a habitable, empty property and renting a council/housing association property across the road via public funds doesn't work. If it's a privately rented property, then the value of the owned property should be provided. This would be counted as capital (at least in part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sazaboo Posted May 20, 2010 Author Share Posted May 20, 2010 ............................................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 It is private rented, I think the hb will be paid purely because he claims jsa. And they don't count the house as capital for at least 26 weeks. I moved out when I found out he was playing away. God only knows why he moved out. He blames me for that as well. Now the house is empty, just stuff of his that he can't be bothered to carry 100 yards to his new flat ( that just so happens to be above a pub...) Hang on though. As per the clause you pointed out earlier, you're not living there, and moved out first. As I read that, he hasn't left the property due to the split, but after the split. Big difference, and as such I don't think he is entitled to claim LHA without the value of the property being included. Happy to be corrected though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 The thread title reads like some sort of chav slogan...HOUSING BENEFIT RULEZ!! Were it spelt so badly, maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.