Client was a rough sleeper for 15 years. Was offered tenancy 6 months ago, but major repairs required on this property so moved into a B&B. B&B charges have been covered by local charity up to now, but the pot is fast emptying!

Is there any chance of HB on a B&B and, if so, would full rent be covered or is it restricted by single room rents etc? Also, does method of referral have any bearing on HB eligibility?

Any views welcome!

This response assumes, very importantly, that the client is NOT liable for ANY payments in respect of the property under repair.

On the face of it, I don't see any reason why HB can't be claimed on B&B accommodation. But, it would still be subject to the usual R/O referral and Maximum Rent rules (including SRR if clmt u-25).

Is there more to this?

Regards

Thanks Kevin. I thought this was the case. However, alarm bells rang because:

a) they haven't put a claim in yet (and the client has been at the B&B for 6 months); and
b) Our Local HB Office have told us in the past that they "don't pay HB for B&Bs or hotels".

The latter is evidently a gross misinterpretation of the regs.

Do you think the fact that a charity is currently paying for the room could scupper the HB claim?
Also, what proof of rent is usually required (invoice from the B&B?).
Thanks again

Lostdog,

Strange - I've also had a query from a LA on the issue of whether or not B & B can be paid for a hotel! However, you have clearly stated that no HB claim has been made and the person acting for the LA has equally clearly stated that they are dealing with an appeal. As an appeal can't occur without a claim, I'm proceeding on the basis that the two cases are entirely separate and, therefore, there is no conflict of interests.

I'm not sure why a LA should argue that HB cannot be paid for a B&B - there are plenty of LAs that clearly do pay HB for B&B cases and I have even seen cases involving a budget hotel chain (Days Inn). I would argue for the clmt along these lines:

1) LAs DO pay HB to B&B cases.

2) If HB couldn't be paid for B&B cases, there would be no statutory meal deduction charge - it simply wouldn't be needed.

3) the hotel room is a "dwelling".

4) a hotel room is "residential" - this is shown by the fact that HB is paid to tenants/guests of B&Bs rated under NNDR and there is no question that LAs readily accept such dwellings to be residential (e.g. homeless placements??).

5) the payments made to the B&B are in respect of a dwelling occupied, at that time, as the normal home.

6) s.130 SSCBA 1992 & HBR 8 are all satisfied. No part of HBR 9 applies - the very nature of a hotel business means there can be no question of the tenancy or other agreement not being on a commerical basis. The terms are enforceable - if the "rent", or "payment(s)" is not met, the hotel can properly take legal action against the tenant.

7) CH/0994/2006 shows that a person can be held liable for the cost of a hotel room (albeit in a very different context - you'll need to read this).


The above is a bit of a jumble, but it gets to the core issues of "dwelling", "occupancy" & liability. Hope it helps.

Regards

PS: If by any chance it transpires this is the same case as that already brought to me, I shall have to ask Rightsnet to remove this post. Although, I'm pretty confident it's mere coincidence; otherwise I wouldn't have posted.

Thanks for the detailed post Kevin.

I have spoken to our LA this morning, and they have told me they only pay HB for B&Bs if the claimant has been referred to the B&B through Housing Aid (a LA service).

Can they do this? Don't the HB regs take precedence over any local decision like this?

Well, maybe there is something I'm simply not aware of, but unless the LA can provide a legal basis for their position, I'd simply pursue a claim. My advice would be to get the claim in - delays may lose money. At least that puts the LA in a position of having to make a decision which, in turn, would allow a request for revision, or appeal, to be made.

I'd be very interested to know how this turns out. It will be very useful to know what happens - irrespective of whether I'm wrong or right.

Regards

In Uratemp v Collins 2001 the HL decided that Mr Collins held an assured tenancy of his hotel room, a place that he regarded as his home. Given that, I find it very difficult to see how any LA could argue that HB was not payable.

Here's the link to the House of Lords judgment in Uratemp v Collins (2001) that paul has highlighted -

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/uratem-1.htm

We've paid Housing Benefit in respect of Hotels / B&Bs in the past if we have been satisfied the claimant is occupying the dwelling as their home etc.

However, the rent is normally so severely restricted by the Rent Service that such claims usually don't last very long.