Does anyone have any news about developments following this supported accommodation case?

I know some housing providers are trying to modify licence agreements to emphasise care and support provided by themselves, which seems a possible interim solution. I understand there was a national meeting between supported housing providers and government scheduled for 27th September. HB tell me there has been no guidance issued yet.

Anyone heard any more?

There are two informative earlier threads on this, if anyone doesn't know what I am talking about, but I don't know how to link to them.

Richard Atkinson
Senior Adviser
Wirral Welfare Rights Unit

Can't confirm whether or not CH/423/2006 is being challenged (although the commissioners website doesn't list it as a pending Court of Appeal case) but here is a link to a summary of the decision in our briefcase area -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/sub_client/search.cgi?template1=briefcase/detail.htm&briefcase.ID_option=1&briefcase.ID=830132831192

and here are the links to the two previous discussion forum threads that Richard has highlighted -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3511&mesg_id=3511&page=

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3703&mesg_id=3703&page=

"I know some housing providers are trying to modify licence agreements to emphasise care and support provided by themselves, which seems a possible interim solution."

Richard,

The "problem" does not affect cases where care, support or supervision (CSS) is ACTUALLY provided by, or on behalf of, the accommodation provided. In CH/0423/2006, the L/L (Rivendell Lake) had an alleged agreement which specifically contained a term SAYING that CSS was provided on their behalf.

The Commr found, somewhat emphatically, that the term in question was "...wholly at variance with the reality of the situation". In other words, the term in question didn't reflect the truth.

So, it doesn't matter whether landlords are amending terms - it still boils down to the FACTS.

In my view, the mere amendment of an agreement is worthless.

Regards
Kevin

I agree with Kevin to the extent that it does indeed depend on the facts of what is provided. I know that many non RSL housing providers have always provided an element of direct support themselves to their tenants, even though the main bulk of the care, support or supervision is contracted to a specialist support provider. What is being done by amending documentation is to codify and formalise what has always been provided directly by the landlord.

The regulation on 'exempt accommodation' does not say anything about the landlord having to provide all or most of the support - it is enough that the landlord is providing support. That is the argument that I am running on behalf of several housing providers around the country, and have been successful in some appeals, and unsuccessful in others. The unsuccessful one is being appealed to the Commissioners.

Incidently, CH/423/2006 is not being appealed to the Court of Appeal.


Simon Ennals

I understand that a further two cases similar to that considered by Commr Turnbull are currently with OSSC awaiting adjuducation. Housing Benefit guidance from the DWP looks set to follow (according to a recent Community Care feature) and it is hoped clarification will be offered as to how Housing Authorities approach the questions relevant in decisions regarding exemption.

I'm hoping that this slight pause will allow for policy decisions to be taken by Central Government which minimise the potential for financial instability amongst Local Authorities (such as the one I work for!. Large pools of supported housing have been commissioned up and down the country with typical 'tri-partite' agreements, where accommodation and services are separated. Concerns about accommodation costs seem to echo the dismay over service costs that led to Supporting People budgets being slashed post-THB.

If the new post-Turnbull interpretaion of exempt accommodation is allowed to stand unremedied, I'm certain that a lot of schemes delivering services in accordance with the aspirations of 'Valuing People' will be decommissioned, as LA's are forced to choose between financial and social care imperatives.

Other threats to the sector, including Clause 57 of the Welfare Reform Bill and R(DLA) 2/06, seem to confirm a trend towards benefit restrictions in Community Care services. Am I alone in thinking that CH/0423/2006 is merely an indicator of further trouble ahead?

The current state of play with the 'direct provision' argument is that I have so far won 8 appeals, and lost one. Others are still in the pipeline. All I think will be appealed to the Commissioner by the losing party.

Simon-

Anybody have any information about when the other cases involving similar arguments, currently with the commissioner, are listed for hearing?

For transparency, and as previously mentioned in other posts, I have assisted, and continue to assist, LAs in such cases to varying degrees.

On a slightly different tack, this entry in Hansard may be of interest:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061031/text/61031w0002.htm#column_262W

The last sentence is of particular note:

"The only cases that the Commissioner’s decision will affect are those where the old scheme housing benefit rules are currently being incorrectly used".

Based on the information and evidence I have seen (first hand), that response is entirely appropriate in the context of CH/423/2006 and other cases where similar set-ups exist.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the Cmmr in CH/423 was emphatic in finding that the situation presented by the L/L in that case (i.e. Rivendell Lake), was "...wholly at variance with the reality of the situation". It was also noted that there were differing versions of a (tripartite) agreement between the L/L, the "superior" landlord (SLL) and the care provider. The Cmmr referred to this as being "slightly unsatisfactory", although this specific point did not ultimately appear to affect the outcome.

Following the Cmmr's logic, it seems reasonable to conclude that CH/423/2006 will not affect cases so long as relevant agreements are NOT "...wholly at variance with the reality of the situation".

However, if agreements are simply changed for the purpose of presenting a claim as falling into the "exempt accommodation" exception, they could conceivably be regarded as shams. And, for new claims, such actions could lead an LA to conclude that the liability has been created to take advantage of the HB scheme (subject to the evidence as a whole).

Regards