Exempt accomodation

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #22868
    j parkin

    I read the previous threads with interest because I had a number of cases scheduled at tribunal at the end of last month.

    Two days before the case was due to be heard I received extra evidence from the appellants representative that they now accepted the new CD, that CSS was provided on behalf of the authority not the landlord – however the reasons for appeal were changed to:

    That the tenancies qualify as exempt accommodation on the grounds that some element of care support or supervision (no matter how small) is provided directly by the landlord, and therefore as an element of CSS is provided by the landlord, the properties should be treated as exempt accomodation.

    As supporting evidence of this a list of tasks undertaken by the landlord was given that they consider constitutes CSS. This being because they consider they are tasks over and above those carried out in the management of the properties

    Obviously prior to this nothing had been heard about these tasks. The items are not listed in the tenancy agreement (or if they are it seems they are covered in the TA as management tasks).

    As I said at the hearing the CSS tasks were previously considered to be carried out by a care provider. It seems that the landlord is now trying to ‘grey’ that area and claim (with verbal evidence) that as these tasks are part of the tasks they perform (whether or not in the tenancy agreement) and say the properties must be considered exempt

    The appeal was heard in part and adjourned to bring extra information

    Any thoughts on this appreciated

    Kevin D

    What a surprise….. change of tack by a rumbled landlord….

    Simple; stick to your guns and make the point that the “change” only appeared after the CD. Even go so far as to suggest it is nothing other than a device / sham simply to fall within the “exempt accom” rule.

    Also, if the clmt’s tenancy agreements don’t make any mention of CSS, emphasise that point. In my view, CH/0423/2006 makes it clear there must be a legal obligation on the L/L.

    Also, even if the “assistance” is provided by the L/L as stated, it is not CSS as envisaged by the law – the L/L simply has no obligation to undertake such duties as the CSS is, in any case, the responsibility of the LA.

    Further, as it’s a change of circs in any case, a Tribunal can only consider what was at issue at, or before, the date of the LA’s decision [edit] – see [b:a308ab1995]CSPSSA 2000; Sch 7, para 6(9)(b)[/b:a308ab1995].


    One other consideration: if there is now a NEW (i.e. revised) liability, how about considering “contrived” (along Baragrove lines)?

    Any probs, feel free to contact me via pm – I’d be happy to discuss by phone.



    I was going to make the point (before reading Kevin’s post) that I was not sure why a Tribunal heard the appeal as they did. It seems to me that the Tribunal is no longer considering the LA’s initial decision (which it appears that the LL now accepts was correct) but is being asked to make a new decision on evidence that was not before the decision-maker or possibly did not even exist at the time.

    My view is that the Tribunal should have rejected the appeal (because the appellant has accepted that the LA made the right decision based on the info it had at that date) and the LL should then have asked the LA to revise its decision on the new evidence.

    j parkin

    Thank you both for the advice.

    I had already been going down the lines suggested, but this helps me expand my arguments against paying HB.

    As it happens I suggested to the tribunal that the appeal lapsed because the appellants were no longer challenging the original decision and this was not accepted. I was then going to go down the line of late appeal with no good reason…


    Good luck with that but I suspect that TTs will want a full hearing anyhow.

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

    Carol Meredith

    We have not done our submissions yet but we now have 2 appeals on the same property but from different tenants. The first one was along the lines that landlord does not provide CSS but arranges provision. The second one, also late and masd by a different representative, says that the landlord provides additional CSS along the lines of the details in jpaskin’s original post.


    I think these posts, and some appearing on rightsnet, have identified the new line some providers are taking on this issue.

    I don’t myself think that a chair will agree with the “because I provide a small amount of supervision I can charge double the normal rent” argument, but stranger things have happened.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.