I have a client in receipt of HB which doesn't cover all her rent because the landlord has put the rent up. Applied for a DHP and was successful. Client was in process of appealing against a none award of DLA. Subsequently awarded low care rate. Already getting disability premium so only increase in income is actual DLA. Housing department are now trying to reduce her DHP because her 'income' has increased. If DLA isn't taken into account for any other benefits how can they do this? Have written a letter to them explaining that DLA is paid because she has a disability, client needs it for taxis/unexpected expenses etc, but they aren't having any of it. Can't find anything in CPAG. Any suggestions?

Well they can do it because DHP's exist separately from HB and other means -tested benefits. It does not necessarily make it right though. Personally I think LA's need to be a bit careful here, particularly if the DLA is going to be used to meet disability-related costs (like care for example). In that situation your client clearly won't have any more disposable income to meet the increased rent than they had before. Worth a challenge.

I dont think there is any doubt that DLA care can be taken into account (see for example CH1175/2002 and R(on the application of Turner)v London Borough of Barnet Housing Benefit Review Board QBD 6 March 2001)

This does not apply to the mobility component, note the words of Richards J at para 15 of Turner:

"15. Specific provision is made for the mobility component of disability living allowance to be disregarded in the calculation of other benefits. Section 73(14) states:
“A payment to or in respect of any person which is attributable to his
entitlement to the mobility component, and the right to receive such a
payment, shall (except in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed
purposes) be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under
which regard is to be had to a person's means.”

I think that you can argue that S73(14) of the SSCBA forbids taking the mobility component into account.

thanks to stainsby ... here's the turner v barnet judgement ...

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/Turner_v_Barnet.pdf