Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)6/08
File Number:	CH 1246 2007
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C. Turnbull
Date Of Decision:	17/10/2007
Date Added:	19/11/2007
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Housing benefit – rent restrictions – exemption where housing-related support provided by person “acting on behalf of landlord” – support provided to the tenant by a third party who acts on behalf of the landlord in some respect other than providing support The two claimants, who had learning difficulties, shared a house of which the landlord was Golden Lane Housing Limited (GLH). Until April 2003 a Trust (OLD) acted on behalf of GLH in managing the property and providing housing-related support. The two claimants were in receipt of housing benefit and the charges in respect of housing-related support were included by the local authority in the eligible rent. Following amendments in force from April 2003, those charges were paid to OLD directly by the Supporting People Administering Authority, but OLD continued to provide management services on behalf of GLH. The local authority then restricted the eligible rent to the local reference rent, applying the version of regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 which had been in force since 2 January 1996. The claimants argued on appeal that their accommodation was exempt by virtue of the saving provision in regulation 10 of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995. Regulation 10(6), as amended in 1999, 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. It was argued on behalf of the claimants that that provision applied where the person providing support acted on behalf of the landlord in any respect, not necessarily in providing support. In the alternative it was argued that GLH itself provided support. The tribunal dismissed the appeal and the claimants appealed to the Commissioner. Held, allowing the appeal in an interim decision, that: 1. the natural meaning of regulation 10(6) was that the care, support and supervision should be provided either by or on behalf of the landlord and had the meaning contended for been intended, the draftsman would have used much clearer wording (paragraphs 27 to 28); 2. the unamended definition made it clear that the care, support and supervision should be provided either by or on behalf of the landlord, and there was no plausible reason for changing the definition (paragraph 29); 3. the definition of “supported accommodation” in Schedule 1 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, as amended in 1999, was clearly worded so as to cover only cases where the support provider was acting on behalf of the landlord in providing support and there was a strong inference that the amended definition of “exempt accommodation” was intended to have the same meaning (paragraphs 30 to 31); 4. therefore the tribunal had been correct in construing regulation 10(6) as limiting the saving provision to cases where the support provider was acting on behalf of the landlord in providing support (paragraphs 26 and 33); 5. however, it was not clear from the tribunal’s statement of reasons that it had addressed the correct wording of regulation 10(6) in considering whether GLH itself provided support and therefore its decision should be set aside (paragraphs 34 to 37). The Commissioner gave directions for the final determination of the cases by him together with two other cases relating to GLH properties.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H) 6_08ws.doc