Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)2/05
File Number:	CH 4306 2003
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. A. L. Bano
Date Of Decision:	23/07/2004
Date Added:	09/08/2004
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	rent restrictions
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Housing benefit - maximum housing benefit - pre-2 January 1996 regulation 11, Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 - availability of suitable cheaper accommodation - burden of proof The claimant, a single man then aged 67, was in receipt of retirement pension and income support. He suffered from arthritis of the spine and a number of other health problems and walked with a stick. On 3 October 2002 he made a renewal claim for housing benefit for the period 18 November 2002 to 16 November 2003 in respect of his assured tenancy (which he had inherited) of the property which he occupied (and in which he had been born) comprising two bedrooms, two living rooms, a kitchen and a bathroom, the property being situated in what had become one of the most sought after areas of Manchester. Regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations in the form then applicable made provision for a local authority to reduce the eligible rent for housing benefit purposes to below the contractual rent if the dwelling was unreasonably large or the rent was unreasonably high. The authority applied to a rent officer to re-determine the claim-related rent and the rent officer determined this to be £70 per week (the same amount as had been determined in December 2001 when the contractual rent had been £92.31 per week). The claimant wrote to the authority giving details of his health problems, his restricted mobility and the network of support which he received in the area where he lived. The authority applied for re-determination of the rent officer's determination and the re-determining rent officer determined the market rent for the property to be £80 per week. The authority revised its decision so as to award benefit on the basis of a rent of £80 per week. The claimant appealed to a tribunal. The tribunal accepted that the authority had in fact made its decision under regulation 11(2)(a) on the ground that the claimant occupied a dwelling larger than was reasonably required by him and that the authority, whilst accepting that the claimant was in a vulnerable category for the purposes of regulation 11(3)(a), had demonstrated that there was an active market in houses of an appropriate type in an appropriate place at the level of rent to which the claimant's rent had been restricted, the authority having relied in this respect on its own list of empty houses and the Manchester "Homefinder" which gave details of homes available for immediate letting. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. per Lord Bingham MR in R v Housing Benefit Review Board for East Devon District Council ex parte Gibson (1993) 25 HLR 487, regulation 11(3) is designed to make special provision for certain categories of vulnerable persons and the power in regulation 11(2) to restrict the eligible rent can only be exercised in cases where there is cheaper alternative accommodation available for the claimant which is "suitable" ((paragraph 16); 2. regulation 11(6) provides that the authority shall take account of the nature of the alternative accommodation and the facilities provided having regard to the claimant's age and state of health (paragraph 18); 3. whilst the authority identified a few of the many properties in "Homefinder" as being suitable for the claimant in terms of size and area it could not provide information about the accommodation other than that provided in the publication itself so that it had thereby failed to discharge the onus upon it to show that suitable alternative accommodation was available for the claimant (paragraph 19); 4. accordingly the authority were not entitled to reduce the claimant's eligible rent on the ground that the claimant's dwelling was larger than was reasonably required (paragraph 19). The Commissioner substituted his own decision for that of the tribunal to the effect that the authority was not entitled to reduce the claimant's eligible rent under regulation 11(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H) 02_05 bv.doc