Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2011 UKUT 44 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CH 3186 2009
Appellant:	Salisbury Independent Living
Respondent:	Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge M. Rowland
Date Of Decision:	09/02/2012
Date Added:	21/02/2011
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Secondary Subcategory:	judicial review
Notes:	CA decision reported as [2012] AACR 37. Housing benefit – landlord providing counselling and other support services – whether the landlord was a person affected by the decision and so had a right of appeal Salisbury Independent Living (SIL) was a company which provided private housing to vulnerable tenants together with care, supervision and support. SIL disagreed with the council about the awards of housing benefit paid to its tenants and submitted appeals via its solicitors on some sixty cases (both former and current tenants). The council objected that some tenants had not authorised SIL to act on their behalf. The First-tier Tribunal judge asked for the tenants’ signed authorisations for SIL to do so and struck out ten cases where none was provided and also rejected SIL’s application to be added as a party because there had been no valid appeal in those cases. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal held that SIL had an independent right of appeal under paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 7 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 as a “person affected by the decision”, notwithstanding that it did not fall within the scope of regulation 3(1) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1002), and that the appeals it had lodged without instructions were to be treated as its own appeals. The council appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the ordinary meaning of the legislation, taking statute and Regulations together, was that the 2000 Act anticipated a definition of “person affected” being given in Regulations, and the 2001 Regulations then provided it in terms which were exhaustive (paragraphs 22 to 33); 2. the pragmatic concern of there being no forum for resolving a dispute which was in commercial reality one between SIL and the council did not sufficiently plainly call for a strained construction and so it was not possible to read the legislation as the Upper Tribunal had (paragraphs 34 to 37).
Decision(s) to Download:	CH 3186 2009-00.doc [2012] AACR 37bv.doc