exempt accomadation is exempt from being referred to the rent officer,
exempt accomadation includes accom. provided by a (non metropolitan) county council, provided that :-

'that body or a person acting on its behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision'

according to the 'guide to HB and CTB, 'care support and supervision' have not been defined and are given their ordinary english meanings

is anyone aware of any caselaw that may have begun to define these terms, or maybe of any parallels one could draw with other areas of law in order to argue that a landlord is providing CS&S ?

your comments would be welcome

please let me know if you would like me to post some more background about the specific case

Thanks

Jim Cook
Mendip CAB

Jim,

A couple of points.

"Exempt accommodation" MUST still be referred to the R/O unless the L/L is a registered Housing Association (i.e. registered with the Housing Corp - it is not enough to be registered only the the NHF).

However, even if the rent is referred, the LA must rely on "old" reg 11 (i.e as it stood on 1 Jan 1996) when considering wether or not the rent may, or should, be restricted. The purpose of the R/O referral in "exempt" cases is primarily for subsidy purposes.

You are correct that CSS is currently subject to dictionary definitions although, based on my knowledge of cases that have gone to appeal Tribunals, Chairs appear to be very alert to the possibility that a small, but significant, minority of L/Ls are using the CSS argument merely as a vehicle to fall within the "exempt" rules (for their own ends). For example, it is unlikely for it to be found that CSS is being provided if a L/L is having to rely on grounds such as "we help with HB claim forms" or "we move food around in the fridge once a week". They may be a factors, but won't (in my experience) be regarded as CSS in the context of the legislation.

Tribunal cases of which I have knowledge have applied a meaning to CSS that goes beyond the superficial. The term(s) "care, support or supervision" are being considered in what could be referred to as APPROPRIATE useage of the terms in the context that was probably intended in the legislation (although never spelt out).

In my view, it is inevitable that "exempt accom" cases will eventually reach Commissioners on any number of issues (including the one you raise relating to CSS). Some LA's pretty much accept what they are told by the clmts and L/Ls; other LAs have strongly challenged the info given to them. In some cases, decisions have even been made that the liability had been created to take advantage of the HB scheme (such decisions being upheld at Tribunal - it is not known if any of those have been appealed to Commissioners).

Not quite the answer you were looking for, but hopefully of interest nonetheless.

If you are happy to post more info about your case, then I may be able to offer more info. However, for the sake of transparency, I declare an interest in that I have assisted some LAs in cases where "exempt accom" claims have been at issue.

Regards

Jim,

Well, as fate would appear to decree, a CD has recently been released which should be of substantial interest for anyone involved with "exempt accommodation" cases. I'm not sure it is quite what you are looking for, but it addresses at least one or two issues that are probably relevant.

CH/0423/2006.

Unfortunately, my regular e-mail addy isn't working properly, so I can't mail it to Rightsnet at this time. But, if someone has access to Information Issue 06/06, the CD was with that release.

Regards

The key issue in this case is that support must be provided by or on behalf of the landlord for the accommodation to be exempt. If the support provider is not the landlord and does have a contract with the council supporting people team the accommodation will not normally be exempt, something that lots of supported housing organisations do not seem to realise.

I agree that the key issue is as identified by Chris. However, there is also reference to CSS which may be of interest.

Regards

CH/0423/2006 has appeared on the Commissioners' site:

www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=1988

thanks both for your input , I'll take a look at the C.D.

for your interest, the case concerns a Gipsy site that is run by the county council. rent is £49pw, but rent officer has restricted it to £30pw - which is the average for campsites in the area.

I'm looking into whether the council does actually provide services that could count as CSS, after all they have an officer who visits the site and helps residents, I'm wondering whether the extra £19 above the rent officers average that the residents pay may be towards some form of support

thanks

Jim

Jim,

Scotland actually incorporate prescribed housing support services into their regulatory framework. Although these regulations are drafted in Scotland they could be seen as highly persuasive in England and Wales courts of law.

You may find that some services provided by the Council do reflect support that is drafted in statute in Scotland and therefore could submit a fairly strong case.

The relevant Scottish SI is 2002 No. 444.

Regards

Dan

Again, for transparency, I declare an interest in that I have assisted some LAs in cases where "exempt accom" claims have been at issue. I have repeated this declaration having identified another poster to this thread who also has a direct interest in such cases, but from the claimants' perspective.

The link to the SI is:

www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2002/20020444.htm

However, you also need the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001:

www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2001/10008--b.htm#2


The housing support services mentioned by keysey2 are shown in the Schedule (related to Reg 3 & s.91(8) of the Housing (Scotland) Act2001)).

However, I did also note that: ""care home service", "personal care" and "personal support" have the same meanings as in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001" (Reg 2).

The Regulation of Care Act then provides a definitive listing of "Care Services". While it is possible that more than one of the entries in that listing is applicable (depending on the facts of an individual case), it's worth noting that, for the purposes of that legislation, a "support service" does NOT include "a service which provides overnight accommodation".

In my view, the above legislation adds little to the CSS argument in HB "exempt accommodation" cases.

It is also notable that in CH/0423/2006, there was a clear distinction made between PERSONAL care and supervision, and HOUSING related support (para 39).


Back to the case in point....

Following CH/0423/2006 (paras 31 & 32), I think it can properly be argued that visits by an LA officer would only count as CSS if:

a) there was a contractual agreement between the tenants and the accommodation provider which included a (genuine) term that CSS was provided to the tenants; and

b) the accommodation provider was itself under a (genuine) contractual or other obligation to provide, or supply, CSS; and

c) the official duties of the LA's visiting officer included the provision of CSS; this being for, or on behalf of, the accommodation provider, and;

d) the services / assistance provided during such visits constituted CSS.


If it's just a case of a Benefits Officer visiting to help fill in forms etc, I don't think this would (correctly) count as CSS.


CH/0433/2006 has useful observations and findings on the absence of terms in tenancy agreements relating to CSS (notably changed at a later date by the named L/L (Rivendell Lake)). And, even though there was a purported agreement between Rivendell Lake and the care provider stating that CSS was provided on behalf of the L/L, the Commissioner was emphatic in finding that there was no substance to that aspect of the agreement - the term was "...wholly at variance with the reality of the situation" (para 32).

Regards

Hi All,

I also need to declare an interest, having represented the appellants at the oral hearing in the case Kevin D is referring to. The problem here is not I think, as Kevin I think is suggesting, that unscrupulous landlords are claiming to be providing supported accommodation - with the support provided by another provider - in order to profit from HB. This is an issue that affects a large number of non-RSL supported housing providers across the country, many with impeccable charitable and/or good practice credentials. The problem is that the funding stream for this type of accommodation has changed, while the HB regs havn't.

Prior to the introduction of Supporting People in 2003 support costs were funded through HB, as part of the rent paid to thelandlord, who then subcontracted to a specialist support provider, or provided the support themselves. From April 03 on the system changed so that the main funding stream for the support became SP, and most SP Administering Authorities choose to contract directly with the support provider, rather than go via the landlord.

That leaves the provision of this expensive type of accommodation - often bought and adapted specifically for the tenants concerned - in a mess. Although little in practice changed in April 2003, following CH/0433/2006 in many cases (not all)the landlord will no longer be seen as 'exempt' as the support is no longer contractually provided on its behalf. I am acting for several organisations in this position, and there is, I think, a real risk of many schemes having to fold, leaving a large number of vulnerable tenants with learning disabilities without the high quality supported accommodation that they had before. Obviously I am advising individual organisations on ways to re-organise things so as to try and prevent that happening, but there is a danger that, by seeing this decision as 'one in the eye' for some wicked rip off landlords we lose sight of the excellent services provided to vulnerable people that are put at risk.

Simon Ennals
Essential Rights Legal Practice
Sheffield

Simon,

I agree with your concern regarding the result of CH/0423/2006, I think HB officers will be obliged to incorporate the findings of this decision within their decision making procedures, which will have huge implications on supported accommodation providers and therefore the vulnerable people with disabilities. I am sure everyone will agree that what we dont want to witness is a large number of vulnerable people being made homeless or forced into residential or hospital care.

Below is a summary of the background regarding the development of supported accommodation and the implications of this decision:


Supported Living arrangements have become increasingly popular over the last 10-12 years. Such arrangements are exemplified by :

-Secure tenure through an assured tenancy
-Separation between the provider of housing, and the provider of support
-Access to the full range of benefits, including housing benefit to cover all housing-related costs
-Greater levels of choice in housing type and location, often with access to the open housing market
-Some improvement in choice about who you live with ( if anyone)

These same characteristics are also found where people are shared owners of their homes. Typically they will have a mortgage for 50% of the property where the other half of the property is owned by a housing provider and rented to them with housing benefit being claimed.

Whilst supported living is not necessarily suitable for everyone it has increasingly become a mainstream choice for people, and is supported as a superior alternative to residential care and hospital care by government, through the Valuing People White Paper and most subsequent guidance.

Because vulnerable people tend to have low incomes, generally derived from state benefits, it has been necessary for housing providers wanting to offer tenancies to vulnerable people, to seek subsidy. Subsidised housing comes in many forms, however the ultimate source of all finance for ‘social’ housing is the state. For some people good quality council housing has provided suitable accommodation where the subsidy comes from a mix of central government and local government funds. Housing Association lettings are usually funded through grants from the Housing Corporation, another ‘arm’ of government. Accommodation costs for people living in residential care have always been funded by Social Services, or a mixture of Social Services and Health. Again the major part of this funding ultimately comes from central government, although there has always been an element of additional subsidy from Council coffers.

It became increasingly evident towards the middle of the 1990s that these forms of subsidy were simply not enough to meet the burgeoning demand for more supported living tenancies. Unfortunately the allocations of funding from the Housing Corporation not kept pace with demand, and, in addition, restraints were starting to be applied to rent levels which made it increasingly difficult for Registered Social Landlords ( Housing Associations registered with the Housing Corporation) to make ends meet when providing accommodation for people wanting to access supported living. Many local authority housing departments had lost their ability to meet specific needs for accommodation, having sold off their houses to Housing Associations. Whilst it could be argued that this might be a better way of managing housing, a link started to be eroded between the responsibility of the council to provide housing and support for its citizens, and their ability to deliver this. This deep-seated local ‘welfare’ principle is not necessarily a part of the formal responsibilities of Registered Social Landlords. Social Services and Health found that their budgets were under pressure because of the loss of economies of scale following the closing of the hospitals and the accelerating reduction in large, congregated residential care options.

Despite research findings which showed that supported accommodation costs for vulnerable and disabled people were significantly higher than for non-disabled people there has never been any recognition that supported housing should be treated differently in relation to rent restriction criteria applied by the Housing Corporation.

As demand increased and supply faltered another subsidy route started to become increasingly attractive – Housing Benefit. The housing benefit regulations allow for there to be a significant degree of rent control through the determination of the rent officer. Each area has it’s own ‘reference’ rent figure for different types of housing and location. In CH/0423/2006 the local reference rent was £45 per tenant per week. People who meet the criteria for being vulnerable, however, can avoid the determination of the rent officer if they live in ‘exempt’ housing. Regulation 10(6) of the 1995 regulations tells us that exempt accommodation is accommodation which is

“ provided by a non-metropolitan county council ……… a housing association, a registered charity or voluntary organization where that body or a person acting on it’s behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision “

Housing providers working closely with Social Services and prospective tenants have been able to provide accommodation by using private finance to acquire properties where there was no existing subsidy available. Because the tenants were classed as vulnerable, and because the housing was exempt, the higher levels of rent, caused by the necessity to meet the cost of borrowing the money to buy the property, have been met. Effectively a very large percentage of vulnerable people living in supported accommodation have been able to access better housing sourced from the open market, and funded through housing benefit. In this context housing benefit has been seen as just another state subsidy to be used when other subsidies have not been available.

Regulation 10(6), up until quite recently, had always been generally interpreted widely. This is to say that no scheme would exist without the Housing Provider, the Provider of the Care/Support Service and Social Services/Health working in partnership,and therefore it was of limited interest which organization provided which bit of the service. In reality, however, supported living arrangements have always followed the practice of separating the care/support elements from the housing/housing management elements. The reason for this is to make sure that if any tenant wanted to change the organization providing their care/support they could do so without having to change their accommodation. Similarly if they wanted to move they would be able to take their care/support provider with them to their new home as support staff were no longer connected to the properties, being domiciliary in nature. Separating support from housing also helps to strengthen the argument that supported living arrangements are not registrable as residential care homes under the Care Standards Act.

The Commissioners decision in June has comprehensively changed the position. The decision treats regulation 10(6) very narrowly and literally. Any scheme where the landlord does not also provide all of the care, supervision and support will no longer be exempt. This means that the rent level will revert to the local reference rent figure. In turn this will mean that the majority of the real housing costs, including paying back mortgages, will not be met. This could mean that housing providers will have to dispose of these properties leaving a very significant number of people, including very severely and profoundly disabled people, without accommodation.

Some legal advice has been offered and it has been suggested that local authorities might decide they can subcontract the purchase of the care and support services to the landlord. Alternatively the landlord could lease the property to the care/support provider, or, indeed, the local authority. All of these options would appear to meet the new regulatory interpretation. There may, of course, be a number of other ways this might be addressed.

It is worthwhile noting, however, that if the local authority or the support provider do end up as being responsible for both housing and support, this might create difficulties in relation to registration. It has therefore been suggested that, where this situation exists there could be a further subcontract, let to a housing provider, to provide all of the housing support and management.

This may be an extremely short term reaction to events however there is strong evidence to suggest that the Commissioners decision has been circulated to all housing benefit offices and that they are actively looking to revert rents to reference levels now. In a quick call to one national housing provider it was revealed that no less than four housing benefit offices had been in touch within the last few days seeking to find out whether reg 10(6) was being mis-applied, on the basis of Commissioner Turnbull's decision.

It is probably right to suggest that, if the following circumstances apply, the situation is critical and action needs to be taken immediately.

-Housing Benefit is being claimed and the rent being charged is higher than the local reference rent for the area.
-There is a separation between the housing provider and the care/support provider.

In the medium to long-term there should be some re-examination of the regulations in relation to housing costs for vulnerable people and there should also be a strategic discussion within each local authority to determine how the higher costs of supported accommodation can be met. In the very short term there is the potential for there to be a crisis involving housing tenure for very large numbers of vulnerable people as housing benefit officers start to cut rents.

Regards

Dan

Dan & Simon,

I read your posts with genuine interest. And, I suspect, we all wish we could speak more freely, but circumstances dictate otherwise. At least for now.

---------
In light of your posts, it now seems only right to confirm that one of the LAs I assisted involved cases you both had dealings with - I'm pretty sure you will know which cases I refer to. It obviously isn't appropriate, at this time, to comment further until the relevant parties have decided whether or not to pursue the cases further. I offer this information so you are clear about my identity (Kevin Ducksbury), in the event that there was any doubt.

----------
Separately to the above, I wish to make it clear that I have no issue with those providers that have "impeccable charitable and/or good practice credentials" and where the purpose(s) of the "arrangements" are designed to provide appropriate accommodation, rather than to take advantage of the HB scheme.

However, the problem is being caused by those where credentials and arrangements can be questioned (i.e. those "wicked rip off landlords"). And, unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest they do exist. They may be a minority but, nevertheless, a significant minority. Not only does this cause difficulty to the tenants / claimants where such parties are involved, it creates a much wider atmosphere of suspicion which, in turn, means "genuine" cases are scrutinised much more closely than they otherwise would be.

This also seems an appropriate time to make it clear that, although some of my posts may have given a somewhat different impression, I have never lost sight of the effect that some HB decisions may have on vulnerable people in the context of their homes being at risk.

However, given some of the evidence and information I am aware of, it is not surprising some LAs are reaching the conclusion that the arrangements are not always as they are purported to be. It is apparent that some Tribunals, and now a Commissioner, are concluding similarly. Where such cases exist, while it is horrible for the tenants, I don't see that LAs can turn a blind eye.

For what it's worth, I truly dread a case being found against a clmt where the arrangements are indeed wholly above board.

Regards
Kevin

Dan,

Thanks for that really interesting summary. Kevin, I am sure that we all know who we all are already, and which cases we are carefully not referring to! I suspect we may 'cross swords' on other cases in the next few months.....


Simon Ennals

Essential Rights Legal Practice

Well I must say its very interesting to find out what other consultants get up to. But I must repeat my suggestion that the commissioner's decision was only stating the obvious and that it is perhaps unfortunate that the case was taken to the commissioners.

But what particularly interests me about this case is that Rivendell appears not to have owned the property but to have leased it from a private company. It does appear that quite often in cases like this the private company is closely associated with the voluntary organisation, often to having the same directors/trustees. I don't know if this was the case here but I would have thought that such a situation would suggest a contrived tenancy, where no HB would be payable. What do other people think?

On the issue of contrivance. This was something we were constantly on the look out for when we were advising on registration issues, putting tenancy agreements and THB claims together in the Sefton area at the time, as part of the Council's welfare rights team.

I must admit that although we came across a fair few general counselling and support providers trying to inflate their costs usually by overstating the amount of time that it appeared reasonable to provide a service, i.e. 6o mins per week arrranging appointments with G.P's, dentists, etc, this was usually the result of ignorance rather than outright attempt to abuse.

It was more common to see organisations being misadvised by consultancy firms charging hefty fees by misleading providers to believe that the SP funding stream was going to be a gravy train full of extra cash. Having said that I have worked with some excellent consultants who knew their job and were completely honest and above board.

One interesting case was R(Moore) v Care Standards Tribunal and another <2005> EWCA Civ 627. This concerned one company that attempted to organize itself as two separate companies, one providing the accommodation and the other providing the personal care. I will leave it to anyone who is intereted enough to read it to decide for themselves whether this was a deliberate attempt to create a device to get round the registration requirements.

Two points from Chris's post:

1) I am not sure that there was any real alternative to challenging the interpretion of the phrase 'on behalf of' in this case, as it was a restrictive interpretation that was being applied by many authorities around the country. It was an interpretation - which I might suggest is only 'stating the obvious' if you take a narrow view of the words, rather than look at the wider arrangement - that was going to undermine the tenancies of potentially thousands of extremely vulnerable people. Now that the Commissioner has approved this narrow interpretation that threat is still up and running. Taking the case did not create the threat - it merely failed to stop it!

2) I think issues about contrivance need to be looked at very carefully based on an analysis of the facts of any particular case, and not by reference to preconceived notions of what arrangements may look legitimate, or who owns the properties.

Simon Ennals
Essential Rights Legal Practice

Well Folks this is an interesting conversation.

In regards to defining 'support' in the context of 'exempt accommodation' may I make a few comments that follow on from Keysey2.

*1* Prescribed 'housing support services' are defined in the Schedule to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (Housing Support Services) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/444). The Schedule lists twenty one different types of 'housing support services' which are eligible for Supporting People Grant payment in Scotland (statutory guidance was also issued in terms of Section 79 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 which accompanied SSI 2002/444).
_________________________________

Regulation 3 of the Schedule prescribes the following 'housing support services':

1. General counselling and support including befriending, advising on food preparation, reminding and non-specialist counselling where this does not overlap with similar services provided as personal care or personal support.

2. Assisting with the security of the dwelling required because of the needs of the service user.

3. Assisting with the maintenance of the safety of the dwelling.

4. Advising and supervising service users on the use of domestic equipment and appliances.

5. Assisting with arranging minor repairs to and servicing of a service user's own domestic equipment and appliances.

6. Providing life skills training in maintaining the dwelling and curtilage in appropriate condition.

7. Assisting the service user to engage with individuals, professionals and other bodies with an interest in the welfare of the service user.

8. Arranging adaptations to enable the service user to cope with disability.

9. Advising or assisting the service user with personal budgeting and debt counselling.

10. Advising or assisting the service user in dealing with relationships and disputes with neighbours.

11. Advising or assisting the service user in dealing with benefit claims and other official correspondence relevant to sustaining occupancy of the dwelling.

12. Advising or assisting with resettlement of the service user.

13. Advising or assisting the service user to enable him or her to move on to accommodation where less intense support is required.

14. Assisting with shopping and errands where this does not overlap with similar services provided as personal care or personal support.

15. Providing and maintaining emergency alarm and call systems in accommodation designed or adapted for and occupied by elderly, sick or disabled people.

16. Responding to emergency alarm calls, where such calls relate to any of the housing support services prescribed in other paragraphs of this Schedule, in accommodation designed or adapted for and occupied by elderly, sick or disabled people.

17. Controlling access to individual service users' rooms.

18. Cleaning of service users' own rooms and windows.

19. Providing for the costs of resettlement services.

20. Encouraging social intercourse and welfare checks for residents of accommodation supported by either a resident warden or a non-resident warden with a system for calling that warden where this does not overlap with similar services provided as personal care or personal support.

21. Arranging social events for residents of accommodation supported by either a resident warden or a non-resident warden with a system for calling that warden.
_________________________________

*2* These prescribed 'housing support services' had there basis in paragraphs 2(a) to (d) of Schedule 1B to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1971). Paragraphs 2(a) to (d) listed four heads of services in relation to 'general counselling or other support' which would be eligible under the transitional housing benefit scheme where the tenant lived in 'supported accommodation'.
_________________________________

Schedule 1B of SI 1987/1971 stated:

1. Subject to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 the service charges specified in paragraphs 2 to 4 shall be eligible to be met by housing benefit.

2. The service charges in respect of general counselling or other support which fall under this paragraph are--

(a) charges in respect of time spent in the provision of general counselling or other support which assists the claimant with maintaining the security of the dwelling he occupies as his home;

(b) charges in respect of time spent in the provision of general counselling or other support which assists the claimant with maintaining the safety of the dwelling he occupies as his home (including making arrangements for the checking of the claimant's own appliances where these could pose a safety hazard);

(c) charges in respect of time spent in the provision of general counselling or other support which is directed at assisting the claimant with compliance with those terms in his tenancy agreement concerned with--

(i) nuisance;

(ii) rental liability;

(iii) maintenance of the interior of the dwelling in an appropriate condition; and

(iv) the period for which the tenancy is granted,

such charges to include those in respect of time spent in the provision of general counselling or other support which assists the claimant with contacts with individuals or professional or other bodies with an interest in ensuring his welfare; and

(d) provided that they are not charges specified in any of sub-paragraphs (a)-(c), charges in respect of time spent in the provision of general counselling or other support which is provided to the claimant--

(i) by either a resident warden or a non-resident warden with a system for calling him;

(ii) in accommodation which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons in need of general counselling or other support services where the dwelling is one of a group of dwellings .
_________________________________

Paragraph 7(b), Schedule I of The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (repealed) provided that "supported accommodation" means accommodation which is-
...

(b) provided by a housing authority, non-metropolitan county council in England within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, registered social landlord, a charity, or voluntary organisation, or in Scotland a registered housing association or a recognised body, where that body or a person acting on its behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision...
_________________________________

*3* It is interesting to note that the defintion of exempt accommodation (used when considering which eligible rent rules to apply to a claim for Housing Benefit) and supported accommodation (used previous to April 2003 when considering the eligibility of certain service charges for Housing Benefit) were extreemly similar.
_________________________________

Paragraph 10(b), Schedule III of The Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit (Consequential Provisions) Regs 2006 (SI 2006/217) provides that "exempt accommodation" means accommodation which is—
...

(b) provided by a non-metropolitan county council in England within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, a housing association, a registered charity or voluntary organisation where that body or a person acting on its behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision;
_________________________________

*4* Annex B of HB/CTB A47/99 broke down the four heads in Schedule 1B into a total of seventeen 'general counselling or other support' services (non-statutory guidance was also issued by the DWP in terms of Circular's HB/CTB A47/99; HB/CTB A3/2000;HB/CTB A8/2000; A10/2001). After a brief consultation process the Scottish Parliament drafted the twenty one prescribed 'housing support services' in terms of SSI 2002/444.

Note: Other circulars that related to 'supported accommodation' are:- HB/CTB A47/97; HB/CTB A3/98; HB/CTB A57/98.
_________________________________

CONCLUSION

Without going into any more detail I am suggesting that Schedule 1B of SI 1987/1971 (repealed) and Regulation 3 of SSI 2002/444 is of strong persuasive value in assisting an authority to define the type of 'support' one could expect to see in 'exempt accommodation'.

Is CH/423/2006 being appealed further ?

As to a further appeal, we are still within the time for seeking leave, but I doubt that an application will be made.

Simon Ennals