Is there any room for discretion in the very strict regulations for size of accommodation, based on individual need? My client has to move to bigger accommodation because her 12 year old autistic son cannot share a room with his 7 year old brother. She has been advised there will be a shortfall in the rent of over £50 per week because the property is deemed too large - but the regulations assume that the brothers can share a room.

I can get evidence from professionals and apply for discretionary extra housing benefit, but as this situation is likely to persist for the next four years, I would prefer a more permanant solution. Any ideas?

In my view, there is no room for discretion in this case.

The LA is required to inform the RO of the relevant occupiers (which has been done). In turn, the RO is bound by the RO regulations in arriving at the determination that two brothers are deemed to be able to share a bedroom - even if they can't.

Somewhere on either this forum, or the HBinfo forum (can't recall offhand), someone posted a response by the Government on the issue of extra rooms.

The response was pretty robust in stating that the legislation was not intended to allow for extra rooms just for medical needs. Of note, that same response seemed (from memory) to suggest that extra rooms for rotating carers should also not be allowed.

DHP seems to be the only route available.

I agree with Kevin (I'm doing a lot of that lately, its getting rather unnerving: only joking!) on the issue of discretion.

However, CPAG are looking for a test case where say a couple have a need for 2 bedrooms because, of say, medical needs. They may be willing to widen the scope. Same principle after all. Maybe you should contact them and see what they say.

Hi Paul,

It's equally unnerving not be challenged.... .

The problem I potentially see with any successful test case on the issue of extra rooms is that it will create only a small window of opportunity. By this, I mean it is hard to imagine the government (of whatever political colour) doing anything other than very promptly amending the law in such a way so as to close any "loophole" that may be found to exist.

In summary, I suspect any initial gain would be short term.

My personal view is that an extra room should be allowed where there are relevant medical needs. As to how this would be judged (and by whom) is yet another matter - and it is the inherent problems of such judgement that is quite possibly why extra rooms are unlikely to be allowed (at least not intentionally).

Regards

I fear you may be right about the government's response. My god, here we go again! Lol!

Regards

Thanks everyone. I'd concluded that there was no room for discretion but theres always a hope someone might know otherwise. Have sent a message to CPAG about the test case, thanks for the suggestion