Does anyone have any suggestions on the following? Client is a young man under 25 with severe disabilities and qualifies for the SDP. He needs a 2-bed tenancy to accommodate a live-in carer. The carer is provided by a charity and paid for by ILF/LA Direct payments.
Under pre-April HB rules client would have been exempt from the single-room-rent rule (because of the SDP) and could have argued that the carer was an 'occupier' and therefore a 2-bed tenancy would be appropriate. But under LHA, entitlement to SDP only takes him up from the 'one-bed shared' accommodation to the 'one-bed self-contained'. The only way he could argue for a 2-bed LHA is if he had a non-dependant; but his carer is excluded from the definition of non-dependant because he (the carer) is employed by a charity. Is there any way round this? Incidentally, the amount allowed to pay the carer only cover's his fees for providing care and does not include any extra for his housing costs.

A carer that lives with the claimant can still be am occupier for LHA purposes even if he is not a non-dependent.

The claimant's home just needs to also be the carers home.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand - I thought that the starting point for a single claimant under 25 was the one-bed shared accommodation category, with a potential move up to one-bed self-contained, and the usual size criteria of 1 bedroom for each specified occupier would only apply if the claimant did not fall within the one-bed shared or one-bed self-contained. Assuming that the carer is the same person all the time, what reg would allow the single under 25 yr old with no non-dependants to come under the usual size criteria for a 2bed property? In fact, to complicate matters it appears that there is going to be a team of carers who do 4 weeks stints.

13(D) 12 is the reg.

You are right in that Reg 3(2)(f) excludes the carer from being a "non-dependent" but a carer that lives in the property would still be classed as an "occupier" for LHA purposes.

However, if the claimant has carers on a 4 week rota bases then they would not be counted as living in the property.

Ok, thanks, I do see that a live-in carer would fall within the definition of occupier under 13D(12); my difficulty was that you can only get to the point where the number of occupiers can be taken into account(Reg 13D(c)), if neither of the previous categories of 'one-bed shared'' (Reg 13D(2)(a)) or 'one-bed self-contained (Reg 13D(2)(b)) apply, and I was getting bogged down with the fact that because he did not have a non-dep living with him, my client had got out of (a) because of the SDP, but was then trapped in (b).

However, having read reg 13D several hundred times, the light bulb has gone on and I think that someone with one live-in carer can get out of 13D(2)(a) because of the SDP, and he can get out of 13D(2)(b) because he does not have exclusive use of 2 rooms, so the alternative of 13D(2)(c) can apply to him. His carer would then count as a second occupier.

In fact, someone with different live-in carers would also get out of (a), assuming he had SDP, and (b), assuming he did not have exclusive use of 2 rooms, but he would then still be treated as needing one room in the size criteria under (c) because no-one else occupies the property as their home.

Is this right?

That 99% of my view.

1) The claimant is not trapped by 13D(2)(a) due to the SDP.

2) The claimant is not trapped by 13D (2)(b) as the one bedroomed rate does NOT apply"in the claimants case at the relevant date in accordance with the size criteria as set out in paragraph (3)" as the there are two occupiers (claimant and carer).

You don't then even have to go on to consider 13D(2)(b)(i) or (ii) as the main part of 13D(2)(b) does not apply to the claimant.

Thanks alot for that - and the v prompt responses - it was very helpful

Just seen this post and it is very relevent to one of my cases.

The problem I am having is that my client has a number of carers that operate on a rota, none of which live in the home as their main residence. Also there are some days when he is well enough not to need the carer, so will give then time off, and he will go without for a few days.

I am being told that he cannot claim HB for a 2nd bedroom in these circumstances. Is this correct? Is there any way around it?