|
This is a very complex issue and one it is difficult to cover fully in a discussion board.
In all cases the LA must look to see if the rents charged are “unreasonably high” in comparison with rents for suitable alternative accommodation. The LA must have evidence of a class of properties (not specific individual properties) offering broadly comparable similar security of tenure and facilities to the accommodation in question.
In the case of supported accommodation, LAs have successfully argued that it is the “Bricks and Mortar” element of the rent that needs to be considered in relation to the costs of other accommodation. This approach appears to have been given a boost by the introduction of supporting people and it has been argued by some that, as supporting people funding also covers floating support, most support facilities are no longer part of the services that have to be considered at all.
The alternative accommodation does not have to be in exactly the same area as the accommodation in question and can include public sector accommodation, although should not exclusively be such.
Where claimants are not “vulnerable” under the regulations, there is significantly less requirement on the LA to show that the accommodation was available to the claimant. Some people have argued that some element of availability must be considered as part of the suitability consideration quoting obiter comments in the case of Devon DC exp Gibson in support, but later cases have rejected that view.
In general, my advice to your tenants would be to appeal against the decision and to focus primarily on the LAs evidence that your rents are “unreasonably high” compared with the full range of rents for suitable alternative accommodation. In particular, the LA might find it difficult to demonstrate that a class of suitable properties exist with significantly lower rents.
|
