|
Notes:
|
Housing benefit – rent restrictions – exemption where housing-related support provided – whether “care, support or supervision” is provided by the landlord to the tenant where the landlord is not the main provider of support – whether the support must be more than de minimis
The claimant, who had mental health problems, was renting accommodation in a shared house owned by a company, which also provided support services through another company within the same group. She was receiving housing benefit, which included an amount for services. The group was acquired by another group of companies, which retained responsibility for support services, but the reversion on the tenancies of the property was transferred out of the group to a housing association (Reside). Reside granted the claimant a new tenancy at an increased rent and asked the local authority to meet the new rent on the basis that the rent eligible for housing benefit was exempt from the rent restrictions imposed by the version of regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 in force since 2 January 1996. The savings provision to those Regulations in regulation 10 of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 defines exempt accommodation as including accommodation provided by certain bodies where the landlord or a person acting on its behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision. The local authority restricted the eligible rent to the local reference rent, applying the current version of regulation 11 on the ground that the exemption did not apply, since it did not accept that Reside or a person acting on its behalf provided the claimant with care, support or supervision. The claimant and other tenants in the same position appealed. Reside accepted, following R(H) 2/07, that the support must be provided directly by the landlord, but maintained that it provided some direct support through its tenant liaison officer. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the basis that the definition of “exempt accommodation” required that the landlord be the main provider of care, support or supervision. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that:
1. the tribunal was wrong to read into the definition of exempt accommodation a requirement that the landlord be the main provider of care, support or supervision, since, had any such limitation been intended, it could and would have been made expressly (paragraph 21);
2. for the same reason, it was not possible to read into the definition a requirement that the care, support or supervision be provided pursuant to a contractual or statutory obligation on the part of the landlord (paragraph 22);
3. in order to satisfy the definition the care, support or supervision which the landlord provided must be more than minimal (Sharratt v London Central Bus Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 718, [2003] 1 WLR 2487, [2003] All ER 590 followed) (paragraph 23);
4. on the facts of this case it was not possible to conclude that such support as the tenant liaison officer was able to provide to the claimant was anything more than minimal (paragraph 29).
|
