I work for a large Registered Social Landlord and our Local Authority has recently agreed to pay Housing Benefit for a garden maintenance service that we provide for some of our tenants.

It is a condition of their assured tenancy that the tenant is responsible for ‘keeping the garden in a reasonable state of cultivation’. Where a tenant does not maintain their garden this would be a breach of their conditions of tenancy.

The charge is included within the rent by way of a service charge. To qualify for the grounds maintenance scheme the following criteria must be satisfied:

Aged 60 or over, registered disabled or in receipt of a qualifying disability allowance i.e.

• Disability Living Allowance
• Severe Disablement Allowance
• Incapacity Benefit – long term rate
• Disability Premium within Income Support
• Attendance Allowance

There must also be no one else in the household who is capable of doing the garden. A person would be deemed capable if they were between the ages of 16 and 60 and did not have a disability in line with the criteria above.


We are now pondering on whether or not we could provide a repairs service for the same group of tenants, using the same qualifying conditions as above.

It states in their assured tenancy the repairs that they are responsible for to ensure the property is kept to a standard.

Does anyone think it would be worthwhile pursing the Local Authority to pay Housing Benefit for a repairs service?

As per my post on the "other" thread, my view is that the above "conditions" are not sufficient on their own to satisfy eligibility of gardening costs for HB.

Thu 18-Sep-08 07:37 AM by Kevin D

*bump*

A CD that may be of interest is CH/0755/2008.

The CD is of particular relevance to the extent of whether or not gardening costs are in connection with the provision of adequate accommodation.

The CD is being sent to Rightsnet today.

Thanks to Kevin D, CH/755/2008 is now available on rightsnet -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_755_2008.doc

The question of adequate acommodation in this context is a matter of fact to be determined by the Tribunal, whilst an appeal to the Commissioner can only be on a question of law. The Deputy Commissioner held in CH/755/2008 that the Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its conclusions and so its decision could not be interfered with.

The Deputy Commissioner also appears to agree with the passage in Findlay at p257 20th ed

“Such payments are assessed by the court in the same way as mesne profits except that they are paid by a trespasser for use of the land rather than a former tenant. Sub para (d) is to be interpreted as referring to use and occupation in that sense rather than according to the normal meaning of those words which might include payment which must be made as an incidence of the occuptation. In R v Bristol CC ex p Jacobs……the claimant was liable to pay water rates as a consequence of her tenancy and argued that the rates fell within sub para (d). The argument was rejected…..
In CH/844/2002…the Commissioner thought that a boat licence fee giving permission to use the boat on waterways fell within sub para (d) para 13. That decision does not refer to the analysis in ex p Jacobs and it is suggested that it is erroneous”

I dont see how ex p Jacobs supports that view because Owen J accepted that:

“a person can be liable to make more than one class of payment specified in 10(1). There seems to me no possibility of dispute over this.”

Owen J also accepted that charges for use and occupation can be agreed between the parties, they do not have to be assessed or imposed by a Court.

I dont think CH/755/2008 sets out any new principles and is limited to the facts of that particular case