Terms & Conditions

[gillian]

New scheme being set up by our housing for single homeless people who have support needs. Supporting People are funding the day time care but have withdrawn funding for night time care. A security guard has been suggested but this would be part of the Housing Costs. My question is does a security guard come under the terms of a warden, caretaker,porter etc and would be eligible for HB? All thoughts welcome!

[Anonymous]

I thought it was eligible as part of the accommodation charges. An entryphone system would be eligible wouldnt it – and a concierge – in bliocks of flats how else would people be able to let visitors in etc. So as long as the security person isnt actually providing care and support within the SP meaning, I dont see a problem.

(I may have changed my mind in repsect of CCTV and security guards – though i suspect many RSL’s are including these in rent and service charges and its a lottery as to whther it gets paid by HB or not)

[Anonymous]

But how many “unsupported” developments need a security guard?

Surely the fact that they are young homeless means that keeping the property secure is more of a support function than one that a hypothetical landlord would provide?

[Anonymous]

For example an inner city block of flats in an area with an active robbery/mugging, drug dealing and prostitution problem ….

Many new apartment blocks have security guards ….

[Anonymous]

But is that more of a general function rather than one that is required because of the client group.

It may be interesting to find out why SP won’t fund this.

Why does the fact that it is night-time mean that it becomes a supporting function? If there’s someone present during the day and this is accepted as supporting?

[Anonymous]

From the original post it sounds as if the security guard idea has been floated [i:6ac2900280]after[/i:6ac2900280] Supporting People withdrew night-time funding – if it had been something previously paid by Supporting People, or was analogous to something paid for by them, I would be inclined to regard it as ineligible.

[junderwo]

Below is the DWPs view on security – the last paragraph intimates that they would not consider the cost of a security guard as eligible for HB.

As you will be aware any service charge is treated as rent for Housing Benefit through HB regulation 10(1)(e) where it is a condition of the right to occupy the dwelling. However, certain service charges are made ineligible through HB regulation 10(3) with schedule 1. We would take the view that service charges related to the provision of CCTV is unlikely to be connected with the provision of adequate accommodation and therefore ineligible through sub-paragraph 1(g) of schedule 1 to the HB regulations. However, CCTV may be eligible where it’s purpose is connected with the provision of adequate accommodation.

There is no definition of adequate accommodation in the HB regulations; therefore it is the every day understanding of the phrase that should be used. The Guidance Manual (A4.174) points to the accommodation being adequate for any tenant rather than the particular tenant. An eligible service charge would therefore generally be one that relates directly to the fabric of the dwelling covered by the tenancy.

I understand that the main purpose of CCTV is usually to provide a security service and unlike a power supply or a hot and cold water system a tenant would not usually expect to find CCTV in their dwelling or communal areas. We would take the view that service charges related to the provision of security for a dwelling like CCTV, concierge service etc. is made ineligible through sub-paragraph 1(g) of schedule 1 to the HB regulations as it relates to the security of the accommodation and not to it’s adequacy.

I hope this will be of use to you.

Yours sincerely

Dave Jones

Housing Support Division

[Anonymous]

Presumably this was preceded by the usual “It’s up to the LA to decide…” routine?

[junderwo]

It was!

[gillian]

Have just got back from holiday – thanks for the comments.

[Author]

Posts