Archive for the 'Benefits' Category

Page 2 of 7

HB round up

By Dave on 17/12/2011. 0 Comments

Three decisions of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal on HB matters stand out: SS v North East Lincolnshire Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 300 (AAC); MB v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (HB) [2011] UKUT 321 (AAC); MR v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 284 (AAC).  If anything binds them together, it is the failure of the first tier tribunal to get to grips with a case, the problems caused by non-attendance of the Claimant or the attendance of the  unrepresented Claimant, and the ability of the Upper Tribunal (by contrast) to nail the issues.

In SS, the issue arose because the first tier tribunal … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note and Housing law - All.

Taken out does not mean taken over

By Kit Molloy on 08/12/2011. 0 Comments

Secretary of State for Work and Pension v Neera Mohammad [2011] EWCA Civ 1358 [not available on Bailii yet]

This is a case which turns very much on its facts and as far as the Income Support claimant is concerned, turned out badly.

Mrs. M. was the divorced wife left in occupation of the matrimonial home. Her husband had first acquired the home without a mortgage for the sum of £69,950 in 1987. 15 years later he took out a borrowing charged on the property in the sum of £114,000. In the ancillary relief proceedings in 2007, Mrs M agreed to indemnify her husband against this borrowing for the transfer … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note and Housing law - All.

Forward to the 18th Century!

By NL on 29/10/2011. 3 Comments

Monstrous Craws at a new Coalition Feast
The Coalition’s proposed legislation this week has a marvellously retro feel to it. Sniff the air. Through the whiff of horse dung and open sewers, you can tell we are back in the days of Queen Anne and not solely because the lawfulness of the catholicity of a Monarch’s spouse was an issue deemed worth revisiting.

The Observer noted that a debate in the Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill gave rise to the prospect of the return of the window tax.  The glorious proposals to cut the benefits of under-occupiers, so that they have to find a less commodious garrett, gives rise to the question of what constitutes a … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW article, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: , , , .

HB Changes: Lawful but what impact?

By Dave on 14/10/2011. 0 Comments

We have previously covered the changes to housing benefit (HB) introduced by the Con-Dems and the DCLG’s concerns over them as well as those of certain London boroughs.  In truth, nobody really quite knows what the “impact” of those changes will be, but we can pretty likely surmise that some rents will become unaffordable, certain areas will be “cleansed” of HB applicants, landlords may become (even more) wary of letting to HB applicants, there may be a knock-on effect on homelessness applications.  One thing which also may be guaranteed is that there will be unintended effects – as socio-legal scholars describe it, there will be a gap between the … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note and Housing law - All.

Contracts and public law: The Cornwall case

By Dave on 10/10/2011. 7 Comments

Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council [2011] EWHC 2542 (QB) (subnom oh dear, oh dear)

Forgive the length of this note, but this seems to be a significant case with potentially far-reaching ramifications.  The judgment of Cranston J (in my view) is mostly spot-on and hugely learned (see well below for an appreciation).  It will be interesting to see whether this case goes further – my insider information is less than clear on the prospects of an appeal.  For what it’s worth, my view is that an appeal would likely be unsuccessful but important in providing clearer lines about the fiduciary duty and capacity issues discussed below, as well … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note, Homeless, Housing law - All and Regulation and planning.

Eligibility: Reg 6(2)(a)

By Dave on 15/07/2011. 8 Comments

News has reached us at NL Towers (or lock-up – see image at bottom of page) from a regular reader/correspondent, Simon Marciniak, of an interesting and potentially important s 204 homelessness appeal decision on the ambit of Regulation 6(2)(a), Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003.  That regulation says that:

A person who is no longer working shall not cease to be treated as a worker for the purpose of paragraph (1)(b) if – (a) he is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident.

So, if you are otherwise ineligible and not a worker, but temporarily unable to work due to illness/incapacity, you are … Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: .

Housing benefit and non-disclosure

By Dave on 04/07/2011. 2 Comments

In Coventry CC v Vassell [2011] EWHC 1542 (Admin), the issue for Hickinbottom J, on appeal by way of case stated, was as to the mental element required to convict an HB claimant for non-disclosure of a change of circumstances affecting entitlement to HB under s 112(1A), Social Security Administration Act 1992.  Hickinbottom J’s judgment is something of a tour de force in terms of his understanding of the interweaving of various aspects of welfare administration, particularly regarding overpayments and their recovery.  Section 112(1A) creates a criminal offence if:

(a) there has been a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage

… Read the full post

Posted in Benefits, FLW case note and Housing law - All.
row of sheds footer image
7 pages