Housing benefit fraud

Here's another useful comment from "Benefits Bod", on this post.

In this particular case, based on the information that has been reproduced, it appears that the conviction was correct. Notwithstanding that, some more info about the law relating to Housing Benefit may be of interest.

Firstly, it's worth noting that if the claimant's husband was not actually living in the claimant's "household", he is not counted as her partner for social security purposes (barring a couple of exceptions that don't appear to apply in this case). It doesn't matter whether they are married; what counts is whether they are members of the same household - there is a substantial body of case law on the meaning of "household" in this context.

Within HB legislation, there are some bars to entitlement where partners and former partners are the landlord. The main provisions are set out below:

1) former partner: HB is not payable where the claimant is liable to make payments to a former partner AND they have previously lived in the dwelling before they ceased to be partners - this also extends to partners of former partners.

2) landlord is responsible for a child of the claimant or claimant's partner: no HB is payable in these circumstances. "Child" means aged UNDER 16, so this bar doesn't apply where all dependents are aged 16 or over.

3) payments made by a claimant to a partner who is an owner of the dwelling: such payments are ineligible for HB.

The third "bar" notably does not extend to payments between partners who do NOT own the dwelling ("own" for HB purposes normally means the freeholder, so doesn't apply to leaseholders). In the latter circumstances, LAs will be required to consider other factors, including (but not limited to):

i) is the arrangement on a commercial basis?

ii) has the liability been created to take advantage of the HB scheme?

If "no" for "i" or "yes" for "ii", HB is not payable. Where the LA relies on the above exclusions, the onus is on the LA to show, on the balance of probability, that an exclusion applies.

There is old case law that suggests the nature of a relationship between partners means it will be very rare for financial arrangements between them to be on a commercial basis in this context. But, there is no direct, express, bar to HB between partners who do not own the dwelling.

In the case blogged, it isn't clear whether the claimant and her husband ever lived in the dwelling as a couple, nor is it clear whether the husband was responsible for the two sons (and, if so, whether either of the two sons were aged under 16).

However, the ownership of the property by the husband does not, in itself, exclude entitlement to HB.

Relevant legislation: regulations 9 and 12 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (and, possibly, the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006).

Which just shows what a morass good intentions land the state in. Hurrah the lawyers!