We are a charity that provides residential support for 18 vulnerable people with drug, alcohol issues. Their Housing Benefit level has been restricted by the local authority in line with what has been presented as suitable alternative accommodation (assessed under old regulation 11), although these alternatives are far from suitable to meet the needs of our client group. I would appreciate if anyone can give me advice on how to deal with this situation.

Our service users individually appealed this decision in March 2002 and provided the council with “Pen Pictures” detailing their support needs. The Appeals Service decided that the most pragmatic approach was to hear one appeal as a test case to cover all 18 appeals made. The Council randomly chose who the test case would be. A hearing was held and the result was inconclusive on the grounds that further evidence was needed as to the level of our service users support and accommodation needs. It was decided that a Community Care Assessment would be performed for the test case to meet this end, and the Council were given an opportunity to reconsider their decision based on the assessment.

Upon receiving the assessment, the Council conceded and paid the full amount for the test case (including a back payment) on the grounds that there were no suitable alternatives available to him in the light of “particular individual circumstances” highlighted in his assessment. The appeal was therefore withdrawn by the council prior to reaching a second hearing, and the Council did not apply the result to the remaining residents! The council stated they required Community Care Assessments for each resident before the restriction for that particular resident could be reconsidered, and therefore maintain that the alternative accommodation is suitable for the other residents unless their CCAs state otherwise.

The only explanation given as to why the test case could no longer be used as a test case, as originally agreed, was that they had conceded specifically because his particular assessment said he would suffer relapse if he left our programme - although it is clear to us that our service users are at least equally at risk, and in many cases more at risk of relapse than the test case, and the Council knew that our service users share very similar needs and associated risks. It seems that only after realising the alternative accommodation was not suitable have they cast doubt on the validity of using a test case, and played on the presumption that his needs are somehow greater or different than the other service users.

In addition, the requirement to obtain CCAs has presented us with a number of difficulties. We have only been able to get CCAs for two of the 18 residents who originally appealed, and many residents leave the programme before we have had time to get a CCA for them.

8 Months ago we handed the Council further CCAs (2 for residents who originally appealed, and about 8 for current residents who wish to challenge their rent restriction.) The council have failed to make a decision despite continuous reminders and pressure. The original appeal was made 2 years 5 months ago, and the subsequent test case was settled over a year ago, and they have still failed to make a decision based on the CCAs. They have recently promised to inform us of their decision by a set date on three separate occasions, and have failed to honour every one of the dates promised, without giving any explanation for the delay.

We have recently sent the Council an appeal letter on behalf of every single service user who has been resident since the original appeal date (approximately 55 residents + we hold signed power of attorney forms for each of these). The council have responded by informing us they are performing an anytime review based on the assessments they have received, but have given no assurances as to how long this will continue to take them.

It seems the Council are using technicalities and adding requirements to complicate what should be a simple issue, and we believe that were a fair, objective assessment made, it would be clear that there are no suitable alternatives in our area.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we should proceed?
Is the way they have acted legal/illegal?

I would appreciate any advice or feedback that may be helpful in dealing with this.

Selecting a test case is not a statutory procedure and neither of the parties is bound by the result.

It is therefore perfectly proper for the housing department to revise cases as they choose they are acting within their powers. This means of course that the appeal falls and if you don't get everything you wanted in that particular case you would have to appeal again.

In relation to the appeals which have not been scheduled since 2002
you should complain to Judge Harris President of the Appeals Service,
you should also complain to the Chief Executive Christina Townsend.

I say this because it is not clear who has been responsible within the Appeals Service for this delay the judiciary or the administration.

If it transpires that it was the administration then you can complain further to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

If the judiciary are to blame then that avenue is not open to you
but I can't imagine that Judge Harris will not act swiftly.

It may also possible that The Appeals Service haven't even received appeal submissions from the Housing Department in which case
you should go to the local government ombudsman who have already been looking at the subject of delay in Housing Benefit Appeals.

In those cases where they have not taken decisions yet you should
similarly go to the local government ombudmsman (I assume you have already used the local authority complaint procedure).

Judicial review would be a good idea if you can get the funding.

what an outrageous tale! the local authority are effectively requiring a CCA in order for your vulnerable and socially excluded clients to prove their entitlement to their full rate of housing benefit.

i would guess it is judicially reviewable on approximately 101 grounds, but it would be a disgrace if it had to come to that.

am i wrong in guessing that the CCA's are carried out by the local authorities social services dept, or are they independent reports? i'd be tempted to request the local authority auditor to ask for true and complete costings to the social services dep't, the full administration costs to the housing dept/benefit service of actioning the appeals,and for an estimate of the cost to the local authority of defending a judicial review action, and to ask whether it can justify the costs. and to c/c your request to all the appropriate ahem...places. for a start..

jj

jj

The CCAs have been carried out by the Community Mental Health Team, who aren't overly enthusiastic about using their time on performing assessments. It is also worth noting that throughout this period the Supporting People Lead Officer has been asked to assess whether suitable support can be provided in the alternatives. He attended the Tribunal for the test case + has been in meetings with HB regarding the currnet anytime review. It seems that a lot of time + money has been wasted on this. We will put what you have suggested in our letter the the Ombudsman.

Thanks for your help. This has been really useful in providing us with confidence and direction.

Any other advice from anyone with a view on this would be much appreciated.

Thanks Chris

As far as I understand, the original appeals were never forwarded to the Appeals Service. The Appeals Service suggested a test case, and HB only forwarded the one appeal submission. We will write to the local government Ombudsman. Is it relevent to write to someone within the Appeals Service to complain about the way the council have dealt with the appeals? e.g. Judge Harris.

Thanks for your response - It has been really helpful.

Was this a transitional housing benefit claim and if so was it the base rent that was restricted or the general counselling and support element?

I believe it was THB. The original claim was made in Nov 2001 and included rent and support. The support was paid in full and the rent element was restricted.