Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 282 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CSH 734 2014
Appellant:	SSWP v City of Glasgow and IB [2017] CSIH 35
Respondent:	IB, per her appointed guardian
Judge/Commissioner:	Other Judges / Other Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	31/05/2017
Date Added:	27/05/2015
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Court of Session decision reported as [2017] AACR 38. Housing benefit – maximum eligible rent – under occupation – interpretation of “bedroom” in relevant legislation The respondent was an adult single woman with a severe learning disability and autistic traits who lived with carers. The council decided she was occupying a four bedroom house and reduced her housing benefit (HB) by 25 per cent under regulation B13 of the amended Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) for under occupation by two bedrooms. She successfully appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) which decided that the fourth bedroom had been used as a living room for some years and the property had only three bedrooms so that a 14 per cent reduction of HB was appropriate. The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against that decision. The main issue was whether the appropriate test for what constitutes a bedroom is actual use or designation of the room, or potential use to be assessed by looking at the property as if it were vacant. The UT dismissed the appeal as the designation of the fourth bedroom as a living room was set in place by the social workers who planned the return of the respondent to her home with carers. The UT considered the disputed issue was a question of fact that was properly determined by the F-tT. The Secretary of State sought permission to appeal to the Court of Session which was granted by the UT. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the classification and description of a property used as a dwelling is a matter of fact to be determined objectively according to relevant factors such as size, layout and specification of the particular property in its vacant state. The classification does not change because of the actual needs of the occupants or how the rooms are used. It cannot be changed except by structural alterations made with the landlord’s approval which have the result of changing the classification of the property having regard objectively to its potential use in a vacant state (paragraph 20); 2. in the first instance, it is for the local authority which is responsible for administering the housing benefit scheme to come to a decision objectively about the classification of the property offered for rent in its vacant state. The landlord’s description of the property as offered to rent will be a useful starting point in the relevant factual assessment but it is not definitive (paragraph 22); 3. therefore, both the F-tT and the UT erred in law in concluding that the re-designation of a bedroom to a living room by or on behalf of the respondent with or without professional advice about that re-designation was a relevant factor. An applicant for housing benefit and the occupants of a dwelling may choose or need to be advised to use the property in a way which best suits their needs, but that is not relevant to the issue of what is a bedroom for the purposes of the Regulations (paragraph 25); 4. (obiter) a room may still properly be classified as a bedroom even although the particular occupants of the property have no child and the room is too small for the couple who live in the property and need a bedroom (paragraph 23).
Decision(s) to Download:	CSH 734 2014-3.pdf [2017] AACR 38wsv2.pdf