Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 647 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CSPC 306 2013
Appellant:	NR
Respondent:	Secretary for Work and Pensions
Judge/Commissioner:	Other Judges / Other Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	04/09/2013
Date Added:	13/02/2014
Main Category:	Income support and state pension credit
Main Subcategory:	housing costs
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2014] AACR 22. State pension credit – eligible housing costs – Scots Law – no necessity for long lease to be capable of registration in Scotland – R(H) 3/07 distinguished The appellant, who was receiving state pension credit (SPC), sought financial help towards the cost of the ground rent for his mobile home by sending a housing benefit (HB) claim form to the Department for Work and Pensions. The form was treated as a claim for housing costs under the SPC scheme (not as a claim for HB). The claim was refused on the basis that there was no long tenancy, as required under Schedule II to the State Pension Credit Regulations 2002. The appellant appealed saying he had a verbal lease for 99 years. The First-tier Tribunal (F tT) rejected the appeal, deciding that the property failed to qualify as a long tenancy because, following Commissioner’s decision R(H) 3/07, it was incapable of being registered in the absence of a written agreement. The appellant appealed and submitted a written statement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 signed by himself and the site owner’s representative. The issue before the Upper Tribunal (UT) was whether the ground rent related to a long tenancy under the 2002 Regulations or whether such a tenancy had been created under the 1983 Act. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the F-tT erred in following Commissioner’s decision R(H) 3/07, as in Scots Law a property does not have to be capable of registration in order to qualify as a long tenancy. However, in Scots Law a lease for more than one year must be in writing and therefore, in the absence of a written agreement, the appellant’s lease agreement could not qualify under that provision (paragraphs 10 to 14); 2. there was neither a written lease nor an agreement which could be brought within the definition of a long tenancy for the purposes of SPC. The written statement produced under the 1983 Act did not assist the appellant because the statutory security of tenure it provided was of indefinite duration and therefore failed to meet the definition of payments by way of ground rent relating to a long tenancy within paragraph 13(6)(d) of Schedule II to the 2002 Regulations, not being “a tenancy granted for a term of years certain” or “a lease for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal” (paragraphs 15 to 17); 3. periodical payments in respect of a site for a mobile home constituted rent for which HB was payable and no amount could be met as housing costs under the SPC scheme in respect of HB expenditure (paragraph 19).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2014] AACR 22bv.doc