I wonder if anyone could advise on a (rather urgent!) situation we have regarding a temporary nightshelter setup. The scheme is being run by an RSL for 3 months over the winter. It was run last winter without any HB claims being made. It gets some some SP funding.

It is a church hall that is being opened up to the homeless for the winter months. From 5pm to 10am this is turned into a 15-bed dorm, with food provided. During the day the church hall is used for church-based activities. We are trying to get HB paid, but the LA have just told us they are refusing to pay – they are quoting section 137 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, claiming the accommodation is not a dwelling.

Looking at this regulation, we feel this is unfair. It is effectively a hostel, in the tradition of the old dormitory-type nightshelters. Can anyone advise how to argue against this?

The LA point out that residents would have right of appeal, but it is likely many of the residents would only be there for a few nights, so getting them to sign appeals several weeks down the line would be problematic.

Thanks in advance for your help.

The best argument I have seen was put by STAINSBY in a response on HBINFO.

Here is a copy of his post from HBINFO. I hope STAINSBY does not mind my copying his post.-

Mr Commissioner Jacobs held that HB could be paid regardless of issues of planning permission and the like. He wrote at para 16 of CH/296/2004

"16. Some issues were raised relating to planning permission, housing lists, and the availability of accommodation. Those factors cannot affect the nature of the arrangement between the claimant and his father as landlord and tenant, either individually or collectively"

He also held in CH/318/2005 that HB could be paid in respect of a licence for a temporary mooring of a narrow boat. He wrote at para 15:

"15. I accept that dwellings and residential accommodation almost always have a fixed location. However, that is a matter of practice and convenience. It is not a matter of definition. To my mind, ‘dwelling’ and ‘accommodation’ both convey a relationship between a person and that person’s base. They do not convey a relationship between that base and a particular location or piece of land where it may happen to be. ‘Residential’ merely serves to emphasis that the base is for domestic and social purposes, not for a business, trade or profession"

and at para 17

"17. Part of the discussion of this point at the oral hearing involved accommodation that might be temporary or merely transitory. I can see no reason why this should affect a claimant’s entitlement to housing benefit. The fact that a claimant’s occupation is limited in duration or uncertain in its tenure may be relevant to the issue whether it is that claimant’s home. But if that condition is satisfied, I can see no reason within the scheme why these factors should bar the claimant’s entitlement to housing benefit. "

Thanks for the response & info. Very useful.
LD