Shared Accommodation Rate for Over 25’s

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34245
    Jayne-T
    Participant

    I understand (or hope I do 😕 ) that the shared accommodation rate will not apply if a single claimant aged 25 years and over or a couple with no dependent children have exclusive use of two or more rooms. However could you please clarify the following section:

    “Or exclusive use of one room, a bathroom and toilet and a kitchen or facilities for cooking”

    Does this mean they have to have exclusive use of all rooms mentioned (i.e.bathroom, toilet and a kitchen or facilities for cooking), I had thought so but after some queries I am now not so sure.

    Thanks

    #96138
    Anonymous
    Guest

    You mean someone is optimistically suggesting that the words should be read like this:

    [quote:38aa6db35f]exclusive use of [one room, a bathroom and toilet and a kitchen] or [facilities for cooking][/quote:38aa6db35f]

    Worth a shot, I suppose, but I don’t think I would be expecting to win an appeal on that basis if I were the claimant. Common sense says it breaks down like this:

    [quote:38aa6db35f]exclusive use of [(one room), (a bathroom and toilet) and (a kitchen or facilities for cooking)][/quote:38aa6db35f]

    I cannot think of any further alternatives that make grammatical sense. I am absolutely certain that the second option above is correct and the first is a perverse twisting of the obvious meaning.

    #96139
    Jayne-T
    Participant

    Thank you for your reply. I was certainly in agreement with your second interpretation.

    [quote:66bbd37137]exclusive use of [(one room), (a bathroom and toilet) and (a kitchen or facilities for cooking)][/quote:66bbd37137]

    The suggestion was that the exclusive use only had to be of the one room and then the bathroom and toilet and a kitchen or facilities for cooking could be shared.

    #96140
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Hadn’t thought of that:

    [quote:a4142a4a5f]the claimant (together with his partner where he has one) has [the exclusive use of one room], [a bathroom and toilet] and [a kitchen or facilities for cooking][/quote:a4142a4a5f]

    – with no express requirement that the second and third items are exclusive to the claimant and partner. I suppose it’s better than the first option I mentioned, but completely defeats the obvious policy intention.

    #140955
    John Smith
    Participant

    We have an appeal where two ex-partners were joint tenants in a two bed flat – only one claims HB. They each have a bedroom, and everything else was shared. On discovering how low the shared accommodation rate was, the claimant and landlord have contrived to "split" the flat into two flats with two new separate tenancy agreements. The kitchen has been divided into two "areas" – in the same room – but each have their own exclusive cooking facilities. As one "flat" also has an en suite shower and toilet, the other person now has "exclusive use of the bathroom". Apart from the fact that the new tenancies seem obviously contrived to take advantage of the scheme (which we will argue), if one actually accepted the facts, would exclusive use of separate cooking facilities – if they each have their own cooker / hob / fridge and sink – be classified as "exclusive use of a kitchen or cooking facilities" even tho they are in the same room? Thank you.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.