i had the following enquiry (below) i suspect the answer is negative, but i thought i'd seek the guidance of those more in the know than myself. many thanks in advance


"Are there any circumstances when Housing Benefit will cover a service charge for cutting a disabled residents grass?

I know that HB usually covers a service charge for cutting communal grass but I know they wouldn't usually pay if it was the tenants exclusive garden. My understanding is that there are some properties, with exclusive gardens, which have been designated as adapted for disabled people and that Housing Benefit quite happily cover the grass cutting service charge.

We have other disabled residents living in flats or houses which have had disabled adaptations provided and the residents are receiving DLA. If we were to offer a grass cutting service to these residents, could we expect HB to cover the service charge?"

I'm sure there is a recent HB CD on this issue and I'm sure gardening is not eligible. The reasoning (from memory) was that gardening is not in connection with the provision of adequate accommodation - or at least not based on the facts of that specific case.

If I can dig out the CD, I'll copy it to Rightsnet.

Thu 18-Sep-08 07:38 AM by Kevin D

*bump*

The CD in question is CH/0755/2008 - being copied to Rightsnet today.

The CD is of particular relevance to the extent of whether or not gardening costs are in connection with the provision of adequate accommodation.

Hello, I have just posted something today about our gardening service and this is paid by HB. It states the qualifying conditions. If you wish to discuss further then you can e-mail me on keeley_oliver@cchousing.org.uk. The post is headed repairs service.

Oliver,

Having read your other post, I am less than convinced that the "conditions" specified should result in gardening costs being eligible for HB. The ONLY relevant conditions are that:

1) payments of, or by way of, service charges payment of which is a condition on which the right to occupy the dwelling depends (HBR 12(1)(e); AND

2) such charges must be in connection with the provision of adequate accommodation (para 1(g) of Schedule 1).

In my view, it is the second arm that will be difficult to satisfy - irrespective of the nature of any benefits a claimant is in receipt of. In light of my recollection of the CD referred to above, I think you have been very fortunate that the LA in question is covering gardening costs. Translated; I suspect the LA is wrong.

Thanks to Kevin D, the CD he highlighted in his earlier posting to this thread, CH/755/2008, is now available on rightsnet -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_755_2008.doc

The question of adequate acommodation in this context is a matter of fact to be determined by the Tribunal, whilst an appeal to the Commissioner can only be on a question of law. The Deputy Commissioner held in CH/755/2008 that the Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its conclusions and so its decision could not be interfered with.

The Deputy Commissioner also appears to agree with the passage in Findlay at p257 20th ed

“Such payments are assessed by the court in the same way as mesne profits except that they are paid by a trespasser for use of the land rather than a former tenant. Sub para (d) is to be interpreted as referring to use and occupation in that sense rather than according to the normal meaning of those words which might include payment which must be made as an incidence of the occuptation. In R v Bristol CC ex p Jacobs……the claimant was liable to pay water rates as a consequence of her tenancy and argued that the rates fell within sub para (d). The argument was rejected…..
In CH/844/2002…the Commissioner thought that a boat licence fee giving permission to use the boat on waterways fell within sub para (d) para 13. That decision does not refer to the analysis in ex p Jacobs and it is suggested that it is erroneous”

I dont see how ex p Jacobs supports that view because Owen J accepted that:

“a person can be liable to make more than one class of payment specified in 10(1). There seems to me no possibility of dispute over this.”

Owen J also accepted that charges for use and occupation can be agreed between the parties, they do not have to be assessed or imposed by a Court.

I dont think CH/755/2008 sets out any new principles and is limited to the facts of that particular case