If someone over 25 with DLA Low Care (£17.75) and Income Support (£86.35) rents a four bedroom house they will get the LHA one bedroom rate paid in full for the area.

If they then move in three friends who all work FT would they then get the four bedroom LHA rate paid?

If they moved in other family members mum, brother, sister etc would that change the above answer?

Non-Dep charges do not apply due to DLA Care?

Answering my own question, sad.

I think the answer to the above is yes they would get the four bedroom rate.

That has tio be one of the best loophole I have seen for some time if correct.

Yes(ish), obvious provisos (for example) being that the friends are each separate entities, not partners and that the charged rent is high enough.

Also the age and sex of any children.

Am I missing something here? Why would they get the 4 bedroom rate if they move people in? Wouldn't they get the shared accomodation rate in both the above situations? The friends or family members wouldn't be part of the initial claimants household.

Thats what I though until this happened last week.

The people moving in are not joint tenants and not liable to pay any rent etc.

Like you I was shocked when it happened, although good for the client.

OK, I'm officially confused. Is this right? Somebody can rent a four bedroomed house and move three pals in and get the rent paid for all of them?

I don't see why they would ever be awarded the 4 bedroom rate as they only qualify for the 1 bed rate? The other 4 aren't dependents or part of their household so on what basis did the HB award the 4 bed rate??

As I see it the claimant rents a 4 bed house in sole name. HB claim lists all occupiers, and is then used to determine LHA. If sufficient occupiers, then LHA awarded for 4 bed property. Assessment of HB entitlement should take into account status of other occupiers within household. If not paying rent then either non-deps, or strong possibility of contrivance to increase HB. If boarders or sub-tenants HB should reduce.

Good to see I am not the only one confused and wondering if its right or not.

Make no mistake the DLA care is very important to stop any non-dep deductions otherwise any LHA would have been reduced.

I spoke with two people in HB who both confirmed it was right, to say I was shocked is putting it mildly.

It happened to a single person who was forced due to ill health and possible homelessness of other family members, they move in their mother and two other grown up family members of the opposite sex.

His HB then shot up hence the reason I phoned to check.

They contribute to the household in the form of dig money but they are not liable for rent or sub tenants.

Strange but true!

What is 'dig' money and why isn't it income?

There has been a slow convergence down the years of the meanings of such terms as “household”, “dwelling”, etc in housing and social security law and the body of case law is pretty well settled on how to approach such matters and the various factors that need to be considered. Now I am by no means any kind of expert on LHA, far from it, but I would be surprised if LHA law suddenly sets off down a different path.

If being a member of the same household is still a dominant factor then the term “household” is not a term of law but must be considered in its everyday context. The commentary to section 137 of The Contributions & Benefits Act is a useful starting point.

For example, “if the two people are separately liable to pay for their accommodation, that is a good indication that they are not members of the same household (R(SB) 13/82, para’ 11)”.

“If the two people have completely separate living arrangements, then they cannot be members of the same household (R(SB) 4/83, para’ 19)”.

Further illumination might be had from housing law as illustrated by the following I posted in connection with another matter.

Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 describes a HMO as “a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household”.

In Barnes v Sheffield CC 1995 (a case where a house shared by students was classed by the court as not a HMO), Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated “(i)n my judgement it would be wrong to do what Lord Hailsham rightly said could not be done and suggest that there was a litmus test which could be applied to determine whether a house was being occupied as a single household or not. Nonetheless, I do regard these factors, in whichever order they are taken as being helpful”.

First, the origin of the tenancy. Did the occupants arrive as a single group? Is there a joint tenancy or single ones? Second, What, if any, facilities are shared? Third, who is responsible for the house as a whole in terms of cleaning and keeping it in reasonable order? Fourth, do the tenants keep locks on their bedroom doors? Fifth, who is responsible for filling vacancies, the landlord or the tenants themselves? Sixth, Who allocates the rooms, the landlord or the tenants themselves? Seventh, the size of the establishment, the bigger the establishment and the more occupants there are then the more likely that it is a HMO. Eighth, the stability of the group. Continuity of the residence of the group will be a factor. Ninth, the mode of living. How was the cooking, eating, shopping and cleaning done, separately or more communally.

Thus each case will turn on its own facts and should be investigated separately and thoroughly and it might be far easier to establish a common household where the individuals are other family members than where they are not.

Note, this list is illustrative and not exhaustive and read together with the body of social security case law provides a fair template of what might constitute a household.