Disputed Housing Benefit Debt

Llamastrangler

A housing benefit question, if I may:

My girlfriend split up with her emotionally abusive ex-partner many months ago, but they continued to live together and claim housing benefit jointly for their rented property. On 1st September my girlfriend, unable to tolerate his behaviour any longer, moved in with her mother and stayed there. In the meantime, she began a relationship with myself and we moved in together on 29th October.

My girlfriend is now being chased for the £700 in housing benefit that she received between 1st September and 29th October on the grounds that she was no longer physically living there. Surely they can't do this? As far as she was concerned she remained jointly responsible for all bills and costs until formally moving out on 29th October. She paid over all the housing benefit to her ex-partner, who badgered her constantly for the money by banging on the door at all hours.

She has explained this, but the council's underling refuses to listen: as far as they are concerned she ceased to physically live there and that is that. Is there anything she can do?

Thanks in advance:)

justlooking2012

Llamastrangler wrote: »

A housing benefit question, if I may:

My girlfriend split up with her emotionally abusive ex-partner many months ago, but they continued to live together and claim housing benefit jointly for their rented property. On 1st September my girlfriend, unable to tolerate his behaviour any longer, moved in with her mother and stayed there. In the meantime, she began a relationship with myself and we moved in together on 29th October.

My girlfriend is now being chased for the £700 in housing benefit that she received between 1st September and 29th October on the grounds that she was no longer physically living there. Surely they can't do this? As far as she was concerned she remained jointly responsible for all bills and costs until formally moving out on 29th October. She paid over all the housing benefit to her ex-partner, who badgered her constantly for the money by banging on the door at all hours.

She has explained this, but the council's underling refuses to listen: as far as they are concerned she ceased to physically live there and that is that. Is there anything she can do?

Thanks in advance:)

If the money was not paid for the rent then surely she is still liable.

Also I fail to see how the ex-partner can of been that abusive for her to continue to live there when they had split up

paddedjohn

Why shouldnt she have to pay it back? she was committing fraud by claiming it as she wasnt living there. She should have stopped her claim when she moved into her mums.

miduck

You cannot usually claim HB for a property that you do not live in. However, you may be treated as still living there for up to four weeks if you have a reasonable belief that you are in danger of violence. It is for the claimant to prove this belief was reasonable by e.g. police reports. Note that emotional abuse does not fall under this provision - there has to be the threat of physical violence.

justlooking2012

paddedjohn wrote: »

Why shouldnt she have to pay it back? she was committing fraud by claiming it as she wasnt living there. She should have stopped her claim when she moved into her mums.

She shouldnt have to pay it back because it was taken off her by her abusive bullying ex-partner who she chose to live with even after they broke up

turkleton

Your girlfriend can appeal and the decision will be looked at by an independent body (appeal rights will be on the notification letter) but from the sounds of it your girlfriend is liable for the overpayment and will have to pay it back. If she wasn't living in the property and didn't intend to move back in she wasn't entitled to Housing Benefit I'm afraid.

jacko909090

As has been said previsouly if she can demonstrate that she was at risk of Domestic Abuse then she may be able to get them to accept the claim as valid even after she moved out - although when I worked in a Women's Refuge the proviso was that the woman had to be intending to return to the property after the partner had left for the claim to be paid.

I have to say I am appalled at the attitude towards this woman from previous posters - Domestic Abuse is a very complicated area and men and women stay in very dangerous and, to others, unlikely situations - however, until you have been in the situation yourself it is impossible to say how you would react. The control that some partners have over their current or former partners can be very difficult to break away from.

Good luck to you both for the future - I hope you have a happy and long life together.
T
x

lighting_up_the_chalice

jacko909090 wrote: »

........ the woman had to be intending to return to the property after the partner had left for the claim to be paid.........

And THAT is the key point, the intention to return. HB can be paid for up to 52 weeks as long as there is an intention to return. That intention doesn't have to be carried out, it just has to exist while HB is in pay.

jacko909090 wrote: »

I have to say I am appalled at the attitude towards this woman from previous posters

Me too.

princessdon

Wouldn't they consider how much benefit would have been paid anyway if separated? There may be little if no difference.

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

Wouldn't they consider how much benefit would have been paid anyway if separated? There may be little if no difference.

That would usually only apply in fraud prosecutions. In theory, as the OP wasn't entitled, the partner could claim the benefit via a backdated claim. However, backdating can be difficult to secure without a valid reason, and I'm not sure they would accept this as a valid reason. Still might be worth a try.

Naf

HB is paid based on occupancy, not just liability.
Other than the suggestions above; if there was actual physical abuse (or the real threat of it) and she can prove it somehow, and her intention would have been to return at a letter date; then she is liable for it.
She should have told the council immediately upon moving out as that is most definitely a chance of circumstances. She is quite lucky that they are only chasing her for the overpayment, not 'inviting' her for an IUC for fraud.