Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I know this was highlighted in teh recent IRRV Bneefit magazine but I am looking for some advice.

We have had a registered charity operating in our area since 2003. We had a Supporting People Interim Contract with them which ended on March 2006. HB was being paid at the rate of £187.55 per week for 18 tenants.

Since their contract ended they have now submitted increases to the overall rental charges whcih are now £298.69 per week for 15 tenants! The increase is mainly down to a lease charge of £52,000 per year. Until this year the property has been provided free of charge to the charity by the owner (which is charitable trust). There have also been increases in staffing costs and insurance costs.

Our Social Work team are not convinced that support is being provided but they remain registered with the care commission.

What are my options for not paying these increases – do I have any?

[Anonymous]

Jenni

If the chairty is both “Landlord” and “Support Provider” the position is fairly simple.

Section 2(27) of The Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 provides the definition of a “housing support service” :- a service which provides support, assistance, advice or counselling to a person who has particular needs, with a view to enabling that person to occupy residential accommodation as a sole or main residence”.

If the Care Commission have granted registration it would be difficult for you to argue that the chairty is [b:3472622437]not[/b:3472622437] providing care, support, or supervision. I would suggest that although support, assistance, advice or counselling are mutually exclusive from each other, it would seem that each of the four elelements could be said to fall under one of the catagories of care, support or supervision (as found in the definition of ‘exempt accommodation’).

From the simple scenario painted is seems that ‘exempt accommodation’ is being provided – I’m afraid it’s back to ‘old reg 11’ – ‘new reg 13’……

[jmembery]

Jenni
You can look at “old” reg 12 which allows you to restrict the amount of the increase. From what you say in your post, most of the increase is not due to any of the exclusions contained in that reg so you can restrict the increase if you consider it to be “unreasonably high having regard in particular to the level of increase for suitable alternative accommodation”.

[Kevin D]

Also look at old HBR 10 & Sch 1 as a means of restricting service charges.

Ask the L/L to provide full info about funding / grants etc both pre increase and post increase.

Also, double check the arrangements for exactly who does provide care, support or supervision.

There are now several threads on HB info for “exempt accommodation” – they may (or may not) be of help.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Im getting a bit lost on this one – are the transitional regs (the ones defining exempt accommodation, and stating that we do not need to refer if the l/l is a reg charity – but not a HA – etc and providing care) still operating?

[Kevin D]

Yes.

Mark (Haringey) has been good enough to post on a couple of earlier threads the SI route from pre-consolidation to post-consolidation. In substance, there is no change to the exempt accommodation provisions.

I’ll try and locate the threads later (unless some kind soul beats me to it).

Regards

[Anonymous]

The original saving provision was in the HB (General) Amendment Regs 1995 (SI 1995/1644), now revoked by Schedule 1 to the HB & CTB Consequential Provisions Regs 2006 (“the CP Regs”).

Instead, the CP Regs consolidate all the transitional measures in one place. They are in Schedule 3 to the CP Regs. The old Reg 11 rules are now in para 5 of Schedule 3, and the people to whom they apply are listed in para 4. Exempt accommodation is still there: para 4(1)(b) and 4(8) – the latter is where you’ll find the definition and it still includes charites etc who provide care support and supervision or engage others to do it on their behalf.

If the claimant’s home satisfies the exempt accommodation definition, then Regs 12 and 13 (the old Rehs 10 and 11) apply in the form set out at Sched 3.5 of the CP Regs, plus there is an additional Reg 13ZA (the old Reg 12 – unreasonable rent increases – which has no equivalent in the main 2006 Regs).

So the rules have not changed at all in substance, they are just written down in a different place.

[chris harvey]

Just picking up on something in Dave’s post. There never have been any transitional regs that say we don’t have to refer a registered charity that is not a Housing Association to the Rent officer. We have quite a few registered charities that have to be referred because the tenancies are not exempt from the RO referral rules. If a landlord is registered as an RSL with the Housing corporation then we don’t have to refer (subject to a couple of exceptions) but if there is a registered charity that is not a registered RSL then they have to be referred irrespective of whether care support or supervision is provided.
The transitional regs talked about in this thread relate to the definition of exempt accommodation, this means exempt from the new reg 13 so the old rules will apply in determining eligible rent. This is not the same as exempt from referral to the rent Officer.

[webmaster]

It was my understanding that when the transitional hb scheme came in although we referred non-HA/RSL rents we used the old reg 11 when deciding to restrict or not if the landlord provided care/support.

That is what I thought exempt was – exempt from having the max rent set by the rent officer decision.

It has been suggested that under the rules (convulted as they are) now we dont even need to refer non-HA/RSL rents [b:8b929a59c1]if[/b:8b929a59c1] the landlord is a reg charity (or similar) [b:8b929a59c1]and[/b:8b929a59c1] provides care/support.

[Kevin D]

The following assumes this is about “exempt accommodation” in the context of so-called “supported housing / living”.

[quote:afab12e2a3]It was my understanding that when the transitional hb scheme came in although we referred non-HA/RSL rents we used the old reg 11 when deciding to restrict or not if the landlord provided care/support. [/quote:afab12e2a3]

Correct. Rents should always have been referred in non-RSL cases. Referrals should also have been made for HAs not registered with the Housing Corporation.

————————————————————–

[quote:afab12e2a3]That is what I thought exempt was – exempt from having the max rent set by the rent officer decision. [/quote:afab12e2a3]

Correct. The only relevance of an ROD for (genuine) exempt accom cases was, and is, two-fold:

1) the level of the ROD is a consideration in deciding whether or not the rent is “unreasonably high”.

2) subsidy

————————————————————-

[quote:afab12e2a3]It has been suggested that under the rules (convulted as they are) now we dont even need to refer non-HA/RSL rents if the landlord is a reg charity (or similar) and provides care/support.[/quote:afab12e2a3]

To the best of my knowledge, this is a myth (unless there has been a change that I’m not aware of). It is still only [u:afab12e2a3]registered[/u:afab12e2a3] [b:afab12e2a3]HAs[/b:afab12e2a3] that escape referral.

————————————————————-

Regards

[seanosul]

Hey up all.

[quote:13a486ff2e]
Quote:
It has been suggested that under the rules (convulted as they are) now we dont even need to refer non-HA/RSL rents if the landlord is a reg charity (or similar) and provides care/support.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a myth (unless there has been a change that I’m not aware of). It is still only registered HAs that escape referral.
[/quote:13a486ff2e]

Kevin is right. This is a myth. There are a number of myths about the protected tenancies that have built up since 1996. (No referral, full rent must be paid, tenants are all vulnerable). Just to clarify no subsidy will be payable on a non referred non RSL, not all tenants faling under old scheme rules are vulnerable and the old reg 11 does not prevent rent restrictions, it provides for discretion for the decision maker about the level of restriction. You only qualify for the 60% subsidy where you are unable to restrict (because of lack of suitable alternative accommodation) and the tenant fits into one of the vulnerable categories. If you “agree” the restriction as some Councils have done you do not qualify for 60%.

[Kevin D]

[quote:b4bb69c58d]old reg 11 does not prevent rent restrictions, it provides for discretion for the decision maker about the level of restriction[/quote:b4bb69c58d]

Another common error – restricting under old reg 11 is not discretionary.

If the rent is “unreasonably high” (and assuming no exceptions apply), the LA [u:b4bb69c58d]shall[/u:b4bb69c58d] restrict. The amount by which the rent is restricted is with regard to the cost of suitable alternative accommodation – that is a judgement call, not a discretionary call.

NB: When old reg 11 was introduced in 1988, restriction was discretionary. But, discretion was removed from April 1991.

Regards

[Author]

Posts