When they stop wasting money on maladministration, unwanted and idiotic projects, bad contracts, half-baked ideas, official errors, bureaucracy...need I go on? I am not naive enough to believe that tax payer burden is caused by lone parents.

Child maintenance disregard in income support, income-based JSA and income-based employment and support allowance will increase from £10 to £20 per week, from 27 October 2008.

BCD; For information and advice, you can contact your prospective Student Union's Advice Centre on 0121 331 6801 or union.advice-centre@bcu.ac.uk Few pointers: if the course is classified as Full Time by the course provider- then it is full time no matter how many hours. This means that from the day your course starts, you will not be entitled to IS unless you are in receipt of disability benefits. Most probably though whilst you would remain entitled (if in receipt of disab bens)- you will not actually be paid, because your student support income will be higher then IS applicable amount. So you will be "means-tested" out of IS. You may be entitled to HB (if you are in receipt of disability/sickness benefits) and your Maint Loan (but not grant) will be taken into consideration as an income. As for disability and studying; you really need to have a chat with your SU advice centre or the Uni's Student Services on 0121 331 5588 (ask for disability services).

If you regularly receive CSA and this amount is bigger then your income support then you'd be better off stopping your income support. Currently though, HB/CTB would count £185 a week as your income (assuming you receive £200 pw of maintenance) but from October 08, the whole £200 will not be counted as an income. I find this example improbable though, because if DWP knew that you are getting more in IS then your applicable amount, they would stop your claim anyway. DWP only keeps paying IS if the maintenance received is smaller then your applicable amount (basic amount that the government says that you need to survive on). So DWP would not keep £190 pw, instead they would stop your claim.

The child maintenance payments will be "invisible", from 27/10/08 when calculating person's income for purposes of HB/CTB. IS is not affected by this regulation. This is my understanding but I will post further clarification if I understood incorrectly.

New regulations have been issued in relation to the treatment of child maintenance payments in the assessment of housing benefit and council tax benefit. In line with commitments given in the Chancellor's October 2007 pre-Budget report, the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 2008 (SI.No.1042/2008 ) principally provide for child maintenance payments to be fully disregarded (i.e.not counted as income) in the assessment of housing benefit and council tax benefit from 27 October 2008. NB - currently only £15/week of any maintenance payments can be disregarded. The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 2008 No. 1042

BCD- which uni you are going to? I'll get the contact details to your prospective uni advice centre. Student advisers are used to this kind of queries- if, for some reasons you are not getting good advice, come back here and I'll help.

I have asked before and I am going to ask again; can all queries, requests for advice, support etc be posted in a main forum. This thread is ONLY for TDS related news, tips, updates, comments on legislation etc.

I think that if the LL lives there and this is his principal address then it does not matter if he actually is there in person for prolonged periods of time. This needs to be clarified with the LL pronto. There are ways of making him talk, like mentioning Inland Revenue (does he declare his rental income like a good boy, etc?) or calling the Council. If you establish that this is LL's main home, then you are excluded occupier and LL's girlfriend can indeed enter the property and shared space (living room, kitchen, hallway etc) whenever she wants too. If you are not excluded occupiers, then this is an entirely different ball game. Point of note; your situation will depend on actual set up (does the LL live there or not) rather than on what the LL says or tries to convey. Well, that's my take on this and I am sure I'll be corrected if I talk balls

oh dear- we need a higher court ruling on deposits paid before 07 April 07 for tenancies commencing after that date.

I was told that the claimant used N1 form but I have asked to have it confirmed for 100%.

Have a look here: Shelter: Eligibility for housing and benefits Advicenow: independent law and rights advice, legal service providers, advice service alliance, UK - EEA - Common problems

As I have indicated in my post, the case was taken on by Gloucestershire HAC which is part of Shelter and will appear in the next Shelter Housing Law Update, which I will post as soon as I can. I was forwarded this summary by colleagues working in advice sector via our internal mail list.

RentedAndRankled: Can you learn to Google? It seems a little odd that your post contains....what exactly? Assumption that I made it up? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/residential-commercial-lettings/117280-tenancy-deposit-scheme.html#post1476085

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/residential-commercial-lettings/117280-tenancy-deposit-scheme.html#post1476085

Be warned of what, you muppet? you think I made it up? Gloucester Crown & County Court http://www.stltrainingschool.co.uk/WESTERN_CIRCUIT.pdf combined, is the word.

TENANCY DEPOSIT CASE (S213 HA 2004) Stankova v. Glassonbury 10th March 2008, Gloucester County Court The claimant Ms Stankova is from Bulgaria and took a private tenancy with Mr Glassonbury on 1.8.07. She was a joint tenant with her daughter and another tenant (unknown to her before start of tenancy). The tenants jointly paid a deposit of £600 in order to move in. The landlord did not notify any of the tenants that he had deposited the money in any of the statutory Schemes at any time. There were various problems with the landlord and he served notice on 2.10.07. The notice was defective. The third tenant moved out of property shortly afterwards and the three tenants made arrangements about how the deposit would be dealt with on its return. On 28.10.07 the landlord entered the property and removed a carpet and the fireplace from the lounge making it unusable and also pulled the extractor fan out of kitchen leaving a hole in roof. The Council dealt with the harassment. The landlord promptly served a further notice November 2007 under s21 which was on the face of it a valid notice. Ms Stankova moved out in Feb 2008. She made a claim under the Housing Act 2004 against the landlord for his failure to notify her within 14 days of how he would deal with the deposit and which scheme he was using. The landlord submitted various arguments against the claim; that the tenant owed some rent arrears, that he had now placed the deposit in a scheme and that there was damage at the property for which he would wish to withhold some or all of the deposit. At the hearing of the matter District Judge Singleton ordered the landlord to pay £1800 +£75 costs in respect of three times the deposit plus the court fee. In awarding the monies, the judge accepted the tenant’s argument that the award was a strict liability penalty, and that consequently there was no provision for counterclaim for outstanding rent arrears or other arguments about the return or retention of the deposit on the basis that a statutory scheme included arbitration for disputed about returning or retaining deposit monies. Comment: In giving his decision the judge expressed concern that ‘it goes against the grain’ and advised the landlord to take legal advice as to whether he could delay the 14 days in which he must pay the claimant. With thanks to Gloucestershire Shelter

Of course I will ask about N1/N208 and post as soon as pos. I am away from the office till 18th April so this will my earliest chance to enquire about this. And the glory is not mine at all- it's guys from Gloucestershire Shelter advice centre.

Ladies and gents, we have a decision! TENANCY DEPOSIT CASE (S213 HA 2004) Stankova v. Glassonbury 10th March 2008, Gloucester County Court The claimant Ms Stankova is from Bulgaria and took a private tenancy with Mr Glassonbury on 1.8.07. She was a joint tenant with her daughter and another tenant (unknown to her before start of tenancy). The tenants jointly paid a deposit of £600 in order to move in. The landlord did not notify any of the tenants that he had deposited the money in any of the statutory Schemes at any time. There were various problems with the landlord and he served notice on 2.10.07. The notice was defective. The third tenant moved out of property shortly afterwards and the three tenants made arrangements about how the deposit would be dealt with on its return. On 28.10.07 the landlord entered the property and removed a carpet and the fireplace from the lounge making it unusable and also pulled the extractor fan out of kitchen leaving a hole in roof. The Council dealt with the harassment. The landlord promptly served a further notice November 2007 under s21 which was on the face of it a valid notice. Ms Stankova moved out in Feb 2008. She made a claim under the Housing Act 2004 against the landlord for his failure to notify her within 14 days of how he would deal with the deposit and which scheme he was using. The landlord submitted various arguments against the claim; that the tenant owed some rent arrears, that he had now placed the deposit in a scheme and that there was damage at the property for which he would wish to withhold some or all of the deposit. At the hearing of the matter District Judge Singleton ordered the landlord to pay £1800 +£75 costs in respect of three times the deposit plus the court fee. In awarding the monies, the judge accepted the tenant’s argument that the award was a strict liability penalty, and that consequently there was no provision for counterclaim for outstanding rent arrears or other arguments about the return or retention of the deposit on the basis that a statutory scheme included arbitration for disputed about returning or retaining deposit monies. Comment: In giving his decision the judge expressed concern that ‘it goes against the grain’ and advised the landlord to take legal advice as to whether he could delay the 14 days in which he must pay the claimant. With thanks to Gloucestershire HAC

Guys, could we just post definite news, tips and experiences of TDS here, please? Otherwise thread becomes difficult to manage. Many thanks!

One of my colleagues has taken some legal advice and spoken with a colleague who has had some involvement in the new legislation and both views are that the legislation is clear in that deposits only have to be protected if taken after 6 April 07. She has spoken with two of the schemes operators and they are adamant that deposits paid prior to April 07 do not have to be protected We were given this example: Students - Housing - Communities and Local Government A student has paid a full deposit before 6 April 2007 (eg in March) for an AST starting after 6 April 2007 (eg in September 2007). Will the deposit need to be protected under an authorised scheme and, if so, at what point? No. A tenancy deposit taken before 6 April 2007 will not be required to be held under an authorised scheme. I am not sure myself, as the legislation consistently refers to "deposit paid", as in paid at all, no matter when but with regards to AST ade or agreed on or after 06/04/07

I think that David was saying is that he and his colleagues at JC can access the info about disability/sickness benefits but they would not be able to advise on them in any way. It would make sense as they'd need to know whether there are any premiums applicable but they are not the agency responsible for awarding or advising on such benefits.

In order to appeal- you need to have the actual decision. So first of all, request for a decision about the January o/payment to be issued to you in writing. Secondly, it seems to me that the your local authority made a mistake by not amending your claim despite the fact that you have informed them about your change of circumstances. If such mistake is made by the agency/organisation that is responsible for paying your benefit, it is caled an "official error". The overpayment caused by an official error can still be recovered IF it was reasonable for the authority to expect that you knew that you were being overpaid. Now, this is very important, as if you can show that it would be unreasonable for them to expect that you'd understand that you are being paid more then your entitlement, then the overpayment cannot be recovered. How can you show that? Well, in quite a few ways, for example if the change of circumstances was small, not very significant; or if you reported few changes of circs and your benefits were going up and down all the time, or that you were unwell etc. Have a look at this link: Coventry Law Centre : Welfare benefits advice : Information leaflets : Income support for pensioners (don't worry about the title of the link, lol) and call Community Legal Advice to get help with the appeal.

It's irrelevant how many hours you work. What counts is your personal eligibility and the income you and your partner, if you have one, are bringing. See more here: Help with your rent – Housing Benefit Help with your Council Tax – Council Tax Benefit

I wouldn't go as far as dismissing the whole document as not useful; it does contain some good stuff. Tgk's comments on it in light of our current interpretation of the legislation; that the 14 days period is crucial and once crossed, there is no going back, the landlord cannot remedy things "later". But many landlords will and that's where the 3x fine would be still applicable. But we really do not know what the judges are going to do with this quite harsh piece of regs. HA 214(4) does state (clearly, in my opinion) that the court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. So once the deposit has been paid into TDS or repaid - the landlord still must be fined, if initial requirements have not been fulfilled. I think there will be some time before judges are fully on the ball with the above.