Meal Charges

The relevant legislation is within para 2 of Schedule 1 of either the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 or, depending on the age of the clmt, the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006.

Assuming the one meal per day isn’t breakfast, the correct deduction is £15.50 (2010/11 rate).

In my opinion, only one deduction should be made.  Schedule 1 makes reference to the provision of meals and, in my view, that includes all the overhead costs in making the meals.  In other words, the associated kitchen and staff costs are all part of the PROVISION of the meal and, in this context, are merely constituent components of the cost of the PROVISION of THAT meal.  It must surely be open to argument that if the legislation meant “provision” should refer to only the bare food element, it would have said so.

If the LA maintains its stance and “double deducts”, I would unhesitatingly suggest assisting all the affected HB claimants with appeals.

NB:  Only the “overheads” connected with the provision of the meal in question would be part of the same “event”.  If there are costs related to OTHER services / meals, the LA *may* be correct in determining THOSE costs as being ineligible (depends on all the facts).

I agree with Kevin, but para 1(a)(i)  of Sch 1 is also very relavant.  Para 19a)(i)provides:

Ineligible service charges
1. The following service charges shall not be eligible to be met by housing benefit–
(a) charges in respect of day-to-day living expenses including, in particular, all provision of–
(i) subject to paragraph 2 meals (including the preparation of meals or provision of unprepared food);

Dont forget that “service charges” is defined as “...periodical payments for services, whether or not under the same agreement as that under which the dwelling is occupied, or whether or not such a charge is specified as separate from or separately identified within other payments made by the occupier in respect of the dwelling; and “services” means services performed or facilities (including the use of furniture) provided for, or rights made available to, the occupier of a dwelling”

I cannot see how the service provided here is anything ohter than meals and that the charge covers the aggregate cost of provideing those meals.  The deduction that must therefore be made is that pescribed by para 2 of Sch 1, and no other deduction.

You could argue in the alternative that the element for the kitchen is an eligible charge because it is not specifically excluded by Sch 1 and is connected with the provision of adequate accommodation, or again in the alternative that the charge for the kitchen is an overhead that is not a service charge but should simply be considered to be part of the rent, (relying on CH/3528/2006)

Hi both

Many thanks for your advice and expertise on this matter.

Unfortunately the LA are still sticking to the fact that they dont believe it is elgible in their most recent reply:

“When itemised separately - the Kitchen/Restaurant services are deemed ineligible because the tenants accommodation is seen to be adequate without them being provided.
The meals charge is viewed as more of a personal living expense rather than a general service in DWP parlance.

I respect your viewpoint of the kitchen service charge being allied to the cost of meals preparation,and it is entirely your choice if you wish to review how the overall meals charge is calculated and/or presented to the tenants.”

It refers to the fact that we itemised the overheads and the food costs separately as we thought it would be clearer - lesson well and truely learnt!

Looks like a few appeals on behalf of the residents.

CIS/1460/1995 should help with your arguments re adequate accommodation (see especially para 17)

In my opinion, an appeal would ultimately be unsuccessful if pursued on the grounds that the cost is “...connected with the provision of adequate accommodation…”.  Although the context was different, the High Court has ruled the phrase must be “...read narrowly…”.  The Court of Appeal did not dissent and, in my view, that principle still holds good.

However, I would agree with Stainsby there *may* be mileage in arguing the cost is an overhead that does not fall within the meaning of a “service charges” and should therefore be counted as part of the normal rent.

By all means argue the “adequate accommodation” point as an alternative (you may get lucky!), but the main argument should be focussed on arguing that the costs are part of the preparation of meals.  Based on the info so far, I would be very surprised if an appeal was to fail - certainly if it failed at UT.

Kevin and I agree to disgree on this.  The case Kevin Refers to is R v Swansea HBRB ex p Littler CA 15 July 1998.  The case was in the context of counselling and support charges (otherwise ineligble charges).

Lord Justice Kennedy concluded at para 11 of Littler

“In my judgment Mr Howell is right for the reasons he has given. The legislative history of the provision in
paragraph 1(f)(i) and the two authorities to which I have referred militate against the wide interpretation for which Mr
Drabble contends. The wording of the exception to paragraph 1(f)(i) is also inapposite if that was the result which
Parliament intended to achieve, and, perhaps most persuasive of all, the whole structure of Schedule I, as well as the intrinsic
nature of housing benefit, favours the construction of the exception for which the respondents contend. I would therefore
dismiss this appeal.”

It is arguable that the context of Littler distinguishes it from what we are discussing here, but I do agree with Kevin that you can easily argue that the costs are not service charges at all, but overheads connected to the provision of meals