Hi,

I have a client who has a large family including several children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. She was renting privately and getting HB at the 7 bedroom rate of LHA. 13 weeks after the change in the rules, her HB was reduced to the 5 bedroom rate. My understanding was that she should have been transitionally protected for 6 months. Is this right?

Also, is anyone aware of any possible challenges to the reduction in the LHA rate?. My client has been unable to find large enough housing through the Council or Housing Association so is reliant on the private sector and a 5 bedroomed house would be insufficient to meet the families needs.

Matthew Finch
Welfare Rights Officer
Leicester City Council

Was she receiving LHA prior to 6-Apr-2009? If so the unrestricted rate continues till the next time her case is reviewed (either from a change in circs or the annual review) then it either continues for 26 weeks, or the new rate is paid if its higher. Unless of course there is a further review, within the 26 weeks in which case the later decision applies and protection is lost.

When the cap was put in place, it was not the intention that customers with large families restrict themselves to 5 bedroom properties, just that the 5 bed rate was the most they could receive.

The government seems to be under the impression that the private sector rented housing market would not react to LHA rates as promptly as it did. I'm making no comments about underinformed knee jerk reactions by the powers that be to sensationalist newspaper reports, its all been said already.

Hi Trishc, thanks for responding.

Yes she was getting LHA prior to 6th April 09. She should then have been continuing to get the old rate for much longer than 13 weeks! and the date of her annual review is important too. Nearly every aspect of a Welfare Rights officer's work is undermined by underinformed Knee Jerk reactions, it's also not agood idea to listen to radio phone ins on the subject of Benefits!

Matt

If its any consolation, it doesnt just affect WELF's. Everything we LA bods have to do is affected not just by knee jerk reactions, but by badly written/thought out legislation and incorrect guidance. And radio phone ins, TV programmes and inaccurate newspaper reporting. I could go on.......

Sorry...not a solution...don't want to teach egg-sucking but I assume you have applied for DHP??

I think the protected rate issue is covered by others...however, that protection at best will end at some point, and DHP seems the only way forward...it can be backdated (R (Gargett) v Lambeth).

On a wider issue, if the LA do not provide DHP, then I think you would have a Judicial Review...even if this failed (can't see how under circs) you would have a good run at a homeless case (unsuitability) and a Community Care overlap which would also be potentially JR. These may be appropriate in any event (unless client blissfully happy at current tenancy and has security of tenure).

I agree that most LAs struggle with large families and accommodation...however, where there is a community care angle, they should be reminded of duty (see R(Tammadge) v Wigan).

Hi,

Oh yes dhp form in the post. Hopefully this will be successful as cost to Local Authority will be less than dealing with disabled homeless children if eviction ensues.

The specific problem here is some of the children have autism and would struggle to cope with moving house, so mum wants to stay put, this was fine when she moved there but has been made a problem by the rule change.

It's always best to try every possible avenue to help a client, but this is a classic case of a change messing things up for someone through no fault of their own!

Matt