condition of use of the land

A friend and a colleague from another organization has asked me to post this.  If the use of a car parking space was a condition of occupying the land and stipulated as a term in the tenancy agreement can it attract HB.

I’ve looked at reg 12(d) of the HB Regs which states that the payments have to be “in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling” and there seems to be no reason in principle why any extra amount charged either in the total rent, or itemized separately, cannot attract HB.  However, on reading the commentary things do not appear so straightforward. 

Or is it as simple as (which is where I’m leaning) that so long as it is an absolute condition of occupying the land and not simply an optional extra, then as long as not specifically excluded by statute, it can attract HB.

What do others think?

Howabout HBR 2(4)(a)(i), in conjunction with HBR 12(1(d)?

When working for / with LAs, the usual rule of thumb was that if a clmt did not have a choice about a separate garage, the charge(s) related to the garage was eligible.  I can’t see any reason to distinguish a parking space and, in my view, the legislation is drawn widely enough to allow “rent” for garages and parking spaces to be eligible (if no choice).

Thanks guys.