Upper Tribunal decision CH/117/2010

  • This topic has 7 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 11 years ago by Anonymous.
Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39840
    cdoherty1980
    Participant

    Hi,

    attended a course this week and the trainer mentioned the above. In a nutshell this ruling means that joint occupants can each claim up to the LHA room rate equal to the number of occupants.

    I can’t find it anywhere can anyone help???

    #113623
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Did you (or the trainer) mean [b]AA v Chesterfield BC & SoS DWP (HB) [2011] UKUT 156 (AAC)[/b] (aka CH/0107/2010)? If so:

    http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3254

    #113632
    cdoherty1980
    Participant

    That’s the one thanks. The trainer had the case reference written down wrong!

    #113792
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    I still think that this is one of the most bizarre decisions I’ve seen – it seems to completely miss the definition of “member of household” elsewhere in the regs.

    Even if accepting the findings of this dodgy decision, it isn’t, imho, carte blanche to apply it for every joint tenancy.

    The decision hangs on the wording “any joint tenant who is not a member of the claimant’s household” by then describing his adult father as part of the claimant’s household which I consider to be utter nonsense in accordance with the rest of the regs.

    #113794
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I agree with Andy for the reason he sets out. But, in the absence of contrary authority, it’s binding (unless a LA is prepared to take another case to the UT).

    #113798
    Anonymous
    Guest

    It’s the way the legislation’s been drafted. There’s nothing wrong with the decision – it’s in accordance with the law as it’s written. Pay particular attention to the definition of “occupier” in Regulation 13D. The full stop should have come after the word “tenant” in the last sentence. I complained at the time that you can’t be both a joint tenant and a member of the household. The DWP suddenly slipped this into a rewrite of the LHA Guidance Manual without flagging up to anybody that their interpretation of the law had changed. Mind you, talking of unintended consequences, on reviewing my under 35s I’ve come across at least two claimants who can now be reassessed to have (in their case) the two room rate so they will escape the January changes applied to others in their age group.

    #113799
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    “you can’t be both a joint tenant and a member of the household”

    Beg to disagree, Chris. If the landlord gives a tenancy to Mr, Mrs and their 19yo son who is a QYP, they ARE joint tenants and they ARE members of the same household.

    You cannot (or should not) read one reg in isolation – membership of a household is covered in HBR 21 (& HBR 3). If a 17 year old son is not a member of someone’s household because they are not a QYP, how does this give any grounds to class an ageing parent as being one!

    #113803
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Yes, you’re right Andy. I meant to say you couldn’t be a non-dep and a member of the household, which is the logic the DWP use in the guidance manual. Reg 2 specifically excludes joint tenants from the definition of non-dependant where they reside with the claimant

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.