Tag Archive for 'housing benefit'

What is a locality?

Published
by
NL
on 3 August 2008
in Housing law
. 0 Comments

R (on the application of Heffernan) (FC) (Appellant) v The Rent Service) (Respondents) [2008] UK 58 concerns the meaning of locality in para 4(6) of Part 1 Schedule 1 Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997.

Locality serves to define the area by reference to which the Local Reference Rent was established and hence the level of Housing Benefit. As the definition of locality is effectively the same for the new system of Local Housing Allowances, the issue is still of importance.

The appeal was from a Court of Appeal judgment upholding a rent officers determination that a locality could be the whole of Sheffield, with outlying rural areas.

Para 4(6) of Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1997 Order provides:

“For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 5 ‘locality’ means an area—

(a)  comprising two or more neighbourhoods, including the neighbourhood where the dwelling is situated, each neighbourhood adjoining at least one other in the area;

(b)  within which a tenant of the dwelling could reasonably be expected to live having regard to facilities and services for the purposes of health, education, recreation, personal banking and shopping which are in or accessible from the neighbourhood of the dwelling, taking account of the distance of travel, by public and private transport, to and from facilities and services of the same type and similar standard; and

(c)  containing residential premises of a variety of types, and including such premises held on a variety of tenancies.”

Lords Hope, Neuberger and Scott held that 4(6)(a) set a minimum number of neighbourhoods - two - but that additional neighbourhoods must be justifed by the need to meet the requirements of (b) and (c), i.e. where the variety of tenancies and residences in the two neighbourhoods is not sufficient to establish the highest and lowest rents. Para (b) sets a geographical limit on the selection of neighbourhoods, so the criterea of para (b) must be applied to each proposed additional locality. Appeal allowed.

Lord Rodger disagreed. If a neighbourhood met the criteria in paras (a), (b) and (c), there was no reason why the rent officer could not use it in establishing the rent, and no requirement to justify adding more than two neighbourhoods to the locality [para 28-29]

Lord Walker, bewildered by the absence of guidance on where a locality would actually stop, agreed with Lord Rodger.

HB as rent for RTB

Published
by
NL
on 16 June 2008
in Housing law
. 0 Comments

Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 624

Where a local authority landlord has failed to respond to a tenant’s notice in time under the Right to Buy procedure, the tenant can serve an ‘operative notice of delay’ under s.153A(5) Housing Act 1985. The effect of this notice is that the landlord must deduct from the purchase price an amount based on the rent paid during the period of the delay (s.153B).

Does housing benefit, whether as payment, or as rebate on rent payable to local authority, count as rent for the purposes of s.153B?

Simple answer - yes. S.153B makes no prescription as to the source of rent payments and it would be ludicrous to distinguish between housing benefit as payment and housing benefit as rebate.

There is also an interesting side issue on preserving rights in a dispute over RTB terms after completion of the sale by way of collateral contract.

Discretionary Housing Payments

Published
by
NL
on 9 April 2008
in Housing law
. 0 Comments

A short note on Gargett, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2008] EWHC 663 (Admin) which was an application for Judicial Review on Discretionary Housing Payments.

The applicant had applied for a DHP to cover rent arrears, being at risk of losing her home. She was refused as

i) she was in receipt of full housing benefit.

ii) the arrears built up during a period when she was not in receipt of HB and that “therefore Housing Benefit may not be awarded as in accordance with the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001: 2(1) and (3)”.

The applicant contended that:

(1) The Council fettered its discretion and misapplied the Regulations in excluding lump sum DHPs from those in receipt of full housing benefit.

(2) The Council failed to have regard to the claimant’s circumstances.

(3) The Council failed to consider its own prevention of homelessness strategy.

Regulation 4 of Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 sets the limit on the amount of the DHP. It provides

    4. The amount of a discretionary housing payment (if calculated as a weekly sum) shall not exceed, in a case where the need for further financial assistance arises as a consequence of the liability to make—

        [(a) periodical payments in respect of the dwelling which a person occupies as his home, other than payments in respect of council tax, an amount equal to the amount of the aggregate of the payments specified in -

            (i) regulation 12(1) of the Housing Benefit Regulations less the aggregate of the amounts referred to in regulation 12(3)(b)(i) to (iii) of those Regulations, calculated on a weekly basis in accordance with regulation 80 and 81 of those Regulations; or.

[...]

Thus a DHP shall not exceed the maximum eligible rent for HB purposes, so that where maximum HB is in payment and satisfying the relevant housing costs, there can be no DHP award.

The applicant contended that the phrase ‘if calculated as a weekly sum’ meant that a lump sum could be paid where full HB was in payment.

The applicant also contended that the calculation should be made for the period when the arrears arose, when HB was not in payment.

The Court didn’t agree. The regulation gives a means of calculation, not a circumstance of entitlement.

The point where the calculation was to be made was the present shortfall (if any), not a past moment of shortfall, even if there was a discretion to make back payments. The applicant was not presently eligible for a DHP, so the option of a discretionary back-payment did not arise.

Grounds 2 and 3 not considered as not arising.

 

HALPA almost live.

Published
by
NL
on 26 March 2008
in Housing law and law blogs and blogging
. 2 Comments

As an experiment, nearly live blogging from the HALPA AGM fell foul of having my mobile turned off. So this is ‘on the way home from HALPA’ blogging instead. Useful talks on Housing Benefit, particularly on the new Local Housing Allowance, in force from 7 April.

Also news that the draft Housing bill due for passage in the autumn contains retrospective provision that all tolerated trespassers still in occupation would gain `replacement` tenacies, and that the Courts would be given discretion to allow either landlord or tenant to claim on breaches of tenancy agreement during the retrospective period of trespasser status. So historic disrepair would be in! No word on RTB status though.

There was also a report on S v Floyd which means I have to go back over the judgment for another careful look. I may have missed something very important, according to Michael Paget.