Client has Downes syndrome and lives in shared house with support from Social Services. He is working in a supported environment and claims WTC as a disabled person. He is in receipt of DLA MRC & LRM.

Housing Benefit are restricting his eligible rent. The LA accept that under the old rules he is in an "exempt accommodation" but are restricting his rent because he is not classed as being in a "vulnerable group". i.e he is NOT over 60 does not have care of children and is not incapable of work.

So the LA are restrcting his elible rent as it is too high. His co-tenant who does not work does not have his rent restricted.

His mother says he can only work because of the type of work he does and of the level of support he receives, but as he IS clearly working I do not know how I can argue that he is not capable of work.

It is up to the DWP to decide his fitness and clearly if he stopped work tomorrow he may well pass a PCA and be found unfit for work. However nobody want him to have to go down this route.

His mother has lodged an appeal against the HB decision, but this clearly raises a lot of issues for disabled claimants in exempt accommodation who are being encouraged to take work.

Any help or comments would be appreicated.

Would it be worth his while reducing his hours to below 16, and claiming IB on the basis of having permitted earnings?

Could not edit previous, but if the accommodation is exempt, you could appeal the restriction on the ground that the LA has not carried the burden of proving the rent to be unreasonably high compared to the cost of suitable alternative accommodation, but have restricted on the narrower basis that the rent officers valuation is lower than the contractual rent.

Thanks for this and I am trying to establish exactly how his co-tenants Housing Benefit award is worded. i.e is there a restriction and then hes in an exempot group or is there simply no restriction.

However to qualify under the "suitable alternative accommodation" route doesn't he FIRST have to be in the exempt group i.e. vulnerable person or am I reading it wrongly?

If he is in an exempt group there can be no restriction unless suitable alternative accommodation is available and its resonable to expect him to move

This is not so if he is not in the exempt group, but the test for all restrictions is whether the rent is unreasonably high "by comparison with the rent payable for suitable alternative acommodation elsewhere"

The rent officer's valuation is only one consideration to be taken into account, and in any case that valuation may have been made on the basis of inadequate data (see R on the application of Cumpsty v Rent officer Service 2002)

Fri 30-May-08 01:26 PM by Kevin D

However to qualify under the "suitable alternative accommodation" route doesn't he FIRST have to be in the exempt group i.e. vulnerable person or am I reading it wrongly?

Just to clarify one or two points.

Firstly, is it definitely "exempt accommodation"? For this to apply, the following criteria must be met:

1) the L/L must be either a non-met county concil (in England), OR a registered charity, OR a housing assoc, OR a voluntary organisation (i.e. a not-for-profit body); AND

2) care, support or supervision must be actually provided to the clmt by, or on behalf of, the landlord.


If the above hurdles are met, then (and ONLY then) do issues relating to "suitability" and "availability" (of alternative accommodation) have to be considered - this is because "old" HBR 13 is engaged (Schedule 3 of the HB/CTB (Consequential Provisions) Regs 2006.

"Suitability" must be considered in ALL cases - irrespective of so-called "vulnerability". It should be noted that for accommodation to be "suitable", it doesn't have to be the same, nor identical. But, it has to be "suitable".

"Availability" & the effect of a move are taken into account only if the person falls within a vulnerable group (i.e. 60+; incapable of work; responsible for child/young person). "Vulnerable group" is not a legal term, but it happens to be the informal language that has evolved over the years. If a person it not within a vulnerable group, the availability of suitable alternative accom is not taken into account.

Based on the info given so far, it *appears* that the clmt is not in a vulnerable group. If that is correct, the issue of availability is not relevant. BUT, cost comparitors must still be with accommodation that is "suitable" (whether or not available).

As an aside, the awards of HB to other tenants are irrelevant, even if inconsistent (or correct, or wrong). Each case must be dealt with on the facts and merits pertaining to that case.

Hope this helps.

Forgot to add a declaration of interest: I have advised LAs on exempt accommodation cases and continue to do so.

Thanks for all your imput, and if anybody else has any other ideas please keep them coming. The claimant received his case papers today and I am seeing his mother next week so I hope its Ok if I continue to contact you if I have further queries. Many thanks ........Doreen Parr