We have 2 customers who have been refused increases in Housing Benefit after landlords increased their rent within 52 weeks of a rent officer determination. The local authority is refusing to re-refer it. In both these cases the rent is still well below the local reference rent and so would be met in full otherwise.
We have argued that Regs 15 and 16 of HB General Regs (the new ones) should be of assistance. An authority ‘may’ apply to the rent officer for a re-determination.
The appeals officer at the local authority has said this can not be done because Reg 15 is subject to Reg 16. This states that there are time limits and we are outside these (if we assume that the limits refer to the rent officer determination).
The decision we are challenging – is the decision not to increase rent. This is a decision made by the authority in relation to housing benefit, it relates in whole or in part to a rent officer’s determination and representations were made within six weeks of being notified of the refusal to increase the housing benefit. We are therefore within the time limits.

What is to stop the authority from applying to the rent officer for a re-determination on its own volition. There seems to be nothing in regulation 15 to prevent this. The time limits only apply to the claimant.
Any thoughts from anyone would be welcomed.

Sorry, I don't think that Regs 15 and 16 are intended to be used in the way you suggest. They exist in order to enable the claimant and/or the LA to challenge a RO determination. In this case there is not an actual determination in existence that anyone wants to challenge. The LA has adopted, the original determinations on the claims in question for however long these claims have existed. Presumably the claimants did not want to challenge the original determination either and in any case they only six weeks in which to do so. The LA is not now going to seek a redermination of a RO determination it adopted weeks or months previously, and even if it would, it would only a challenge to the original determination on the original facts. There is nothing in Reg 15 to enable a challenge to a refusal by the LA to do a further referral.

Your customers are caught by Reg 14 and a further referral is not possible within 52 weeks unless one of the things in Schedule 2 happens.

Ant,

although it doesen't answer your query directly, Commissioner Williams considers the issue of whether a claimant's tenancy is excluded for the purposes of refering a rent increase for rent officer determination in CH/1556/2006.

There is a summary of CH/1556/2006 in the briefcase area of rightsnet.

Reg 15 is not subject to reg 16.

Reg 15 gives LAs a discretionary power to request a redetermination of a rent officer decision whether or not the claimant has exercised their right to request a redetermination under Reg 16.

Reg 15 request for a redetermination can be undertaken at any time during the life of a determination and the 6 week time limit imposed on requests under Reg 16 does not apply to requests under Reg 15. (Hope that makes sense)

However, only the LA can make Reg 15 requests, and they are discretionary. The only challenge can be on the usual reasonableness grounds.

Saying all that, I don’t think your redeterminations offer the best remedy in your clients case. They are, as Andy Richards has pointed out, effectively appeals against a Rent Officer determination and even if a redetermination was requested by the LA the rent officer would look at the decision made based upon the circumstances as they stood at the time of the original decision. I.E before your clients had a rent increase.

In retrospect I could have made my own post simpler by pointing out that "redetermination" is not the same as "re-referral". When you ask for a redetermination you are taking issue with the RO's original determination. And, yes, a LA could do that at any time, though I would maintain that an LA is not likely to think it reasonable to ask for a redetermination of a decision it had been using for months.

Re-referral is what you want when some change (like a rent increase) has occurred, but only the specific grounds in Schedule 2 enable you to do this.

Thank you all vwery much;

can I ask for a little further clarification;
In reg 16, are the references to decisions, decisions made by the Rent Officer or the LA & therefore HB decisions. The HB decision relates to the RO detewrmination. This being the case, is not the refusal to increase the HB the decision referred to in 16(1)(a)?

Ta very

The Decisions covered by regulation 16 are HB decisions. The problem is that the decision you are challenging is one not to re-refer the rent to the rent officer.

I suppose there may be a case you could argue that this relates to “a rent officers decision” in so much as they will not undertake a process to obtain a new rent officer’s decision following a rent increase, but the regulations then only require the LA to ask for a redetermination, which they cannot do as the whole point is that there is no determination in the first place.

The penny has finally dropped; thanks