Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)1/03
File Number:	CH 627 2002
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	12/07/2002
Date Added:	02/08/2002
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	occupation of the home, two homes and temporary absence
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Housing benefit - liability to make payments in respect of a dwelling - whether tenancy on a commercial basis - findings of fact The claimant moved from rented accommodation into accommodation owned by her brother. She claimed housing benefit in respect of the payments she agreed to make to her brother. Benefit was refused and the claimant appealed to a tribunal. The tribunal concluded from its findings of fact taken cumulatively that the tenancy was not on a commercial basis and therefore she fell to be treated as not liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling (regulation 7(1)(a) Housing Benefit (General) Regulations). On appeal to the Commissioner it was argued on behalf of the claimant that the tribunal had failed to explain the basis of its decision, and in particular had not made it clear which of its findings of fact had weighed most heavily in favour of the decision that the arrangement was not on a commercial basis. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 7 presupposed that there was a genuine legal liability to make payments in respect of the dwelling. Otherwise there was no entitlement by virtue of regulation 6. A case under regulation 7 must be considered on the basis that there was an arrangement that created a legal liability for payment (para. 19); 2. the proper approach for an appeal tribunal was to investigate and determine the facts material to the issue and then determine as a question of "compound fact" whether as a matter of the proper use of language the arrangement was not on a commercial basis, applying the principles established by the authorities (para. 20-22); 3. in applying those principles (summarised by the Commissioner in paragraphs 10-14), the tribunal must not reason by analogy from the reported cases and must consider the individual facts of each case in the context of all the others (para. 22); 4. it followed that, if a tribunal had made sufficient findings of the constituent facts, there may be little more that it could usefully say to explain its findings of compound fact (para. 23); 5. the grounds of appeal in the present case were therefore misconceived, as the tribunal had made sufficient findings of the constituent facts, and had not misdirected itself as to the law (para. 28-29).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H) 1 03 ws.doc