Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)1/08
File Number:	CH 1821 2006
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	03/04/2007
Date Added:	10/05/2007
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Secondary Subcategory:	other
Notes:	Housing benefit – payment to landlord – scope of appeal by landlord Housing benefit – payment to landlord – whether local authority has power to suspend payment pending decision whether to pay to landlord The claimant became a tenant of the landlord’s property in October 2004. He claimed and was awarded housing benefit. The landlord informed the local authority in March 2005 that arrears of rent equivalent to more than eight weeks or more had accumulated. That raised the issue whether the local authority should pay housing benefit direct to the landlord, as required by regulation 95(1)(b) of the 2006 Regulations, subject to an exception where it was “in the overriding interests of the claimant not to make direct payments to the landlord”. The local authority decided, on the basis of information from the tenant, without reference to the landlord, that it was in the overriding interests of the claimant to continue to pay the housing benefit to him. The landlord appealed and a tribunal allowed his appeal. The local authority appealed to the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner the local authority argued that the local authority’s decision under regulation 95(1)(b) was discretionary and that (relying on CH/4108/2005) it should have limited itself to considering whether the decision under appeal was defective on judicial review grounds. The issue also arose as to whether the local authority could have suspended payment pending enquiries of the landlord. The case additionally raised the same issue as R(H) 2/08 as to whether it was possible to make payment of housing benefit in respect of the same entitlement for the same period to both the claimant and the landlord. By agreement at the hearing, that issue was dealt with in R(H)/2/08. Held, allowing the appeal, but substituting a decision to the same effect, that: 1. regulation 95(1) gives a local authority a duty, not a discretion and provides both a test for the relevance of the factors taken into account and a touchstone for the exercise of the judgment on those factors, which allow a tribunal to undertake an independent reconsideration of whether the exception applies rather than merely a consideration of whether the decision-maker approached the issue properly in judicial review terms (R(IB) 2/04 followed; R(H) 6/06 distinguished; CH/4108/2005 not followed) (paragraphs 14 to 18); 2. a change in payee involves the revision or supersession of an award (see R(H) 2/08), and accordingly, regulation 11(2)(a)(ii) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 permits the suspension of payment of housing benefit while enquiries are made concerning the person to whom the benefit should be paid (paragraphs 19 to 29); 3. (applying R(H) 2/08) it is not possible to make payment of housing benefit in respect of the same entitlement for the same period to both the claimant and the landlord and the tribunal should have so decided (paragraph 32). The Commissioner therefore substituted his own decision in similar terms to R(H) 2/08.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H) 1-08ws.doc