Client discharged from hospital following ‘ruling’ a Home Office ruling. The local housing authority could not provide suitable accommodation for the client. Private accommodation arranged by non-metropolitan county council, and a charity. Client shares accommodation with one other client. Care and supervision being put in for both clients.

Referred to rent officer by local housing authority. Rent officer ruled that eligible rent less than actual rent. Discretionary housing payment request, to meet shortfall, unsuccessful. Request that accommodation be treat as ‘exempt accommodation’ not accepted by housing authority. I am looking for help to argue that accommodation is ‘provided’ (p147 Zebedee) by the charity or non-metropolitan county council - or suggestions of how to met client’s shortfall between housing benefit awarded and actual rent due.

"Exempt accommodation" is defined within Regulation 10 of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995. The relevant extract is as follows:


“…accommodation which is

ii) provided by……a housing association, a registered charity or voluntary organisation where that body or a person acting on its behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision”


If the care etc is NOT provided by the accommodation provider (or on behalf of that "person"), then the claim CANNOT fall within the definition of exempt accommodation.

If steps are taken to conveniently "make" it exempt accommodation, then you will run the risk of falling foul of HBR 7(1)(l) - i.e. "contrived".

Further, "exempt accommodation" is an exception. Accordingly, the onus is on the clmt to show the exception is met.

As an aside, the Government are currently looking at the "exempt accommodation" provision. In the not too distant future, it would be of no surprise to me to see a substantial tightening up of this provision.

Regards

Thanks for the response. I agree there may be difficulties in getting such an arrangement accepted as exempt accommodation. However the regulations do not specifically state such a claim cannot fall within the definition of exempt accommodation. Re 'contrived’ there would certainly be good, and legitimate reasons why a body, e.g. a charity, should manage a property and have the right to allocate that accommodation to clients who have significant problems finding appropriate accommodation.

Alan, forgive what may appear to be a relatively terse response; but the legislation is clear.

It is not a question of "difficulties" in getting the arrangement accepted. If the arrangements do not satisfy the provisions of Reg 10 of the Amendment Regs 1995, it is not exempt accommodation.

Either the arrangements satisfy the legislation, or they do not.

As for the "contrived" argument, the LA would potentially have strong arguments if they were satisfied that a dominant purpose of creating the liability (& that would include the basis of the arrangement) was to take advantage of the HB scheme. The idea of contrivance in these circumstances is not so far fetched as it appears. More than one LA is looking at the "arrangements" related to exempt accommodation in this context.

Sorry if the above isn't seen as being particularly helpful to reaching the conclusion you are looking for, but it would be misleading to suggest either your case is straight forward or that it was just another bolshy LA (of which, I readily acknowledge, there are too many).

It may also be of interest that at least two recent(ish) Tribunals have firmly found against claimants where it was claimed by the L/L that care etc was provided on behalf of the L/L. Both were high rent cases. The respective Tribunals found emphatically that such care had nothing to do with the L/L. I don't know if those cases have been, or will be, appealed to Commissioners.

Regards