× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

R v Bristol City Council ex p Jacobs (1999)

PandaNBTA
forum member

National Bargee Travellers Association, Reading

Send message

Total Posts: 32

Joined: 7 August 2012

Does anyone have a copy of the full text of R v Bristol City Council ex p Jacobs (1999) please? We would very much appreciate a copy. If you have it please email secretariat [at] bargee-traveller.org.uk

It was previously discussed on Rightsnet at http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/indexd7ac.html and if stainsby or claire hodgson are still around please would one of you get in touch? Many thanks.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

well I’m still here, at a different firm, though; the electronic copy was on the PC at the then firm, and i left there in 2008!!!!  my recollection is that i got it from an online resource to which i no longer have access…..

Brian Fletcher
forum member

Welfare Rights, Wigan & Leigh Carers Centre, Wigan

Send message

Total Posts: 101

Joined: 1 April 2015

I’ve pulled a copy off (edited out) which I’ll mail to you

[ Edited: 7 Dec 2016 at 11:43 am by Brian Fletcher ]
Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Decision attached here for future reference too…

File Attachments

PandaNBTA
forum member

National Bargee Travellers Association, Reading

Send message

Total Posts: 32

Joined: 7 August 2012

Thank you to Daphne and Brian for a fast response! Hopefully if anyone else needs it they’ll find it on here now.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Looking at the OP’s user credentials I am assuming the request for this case is to do with whether the payments that houseboat/barge occupiers make in addition to rent for their moorings can be covered by HB as payments in consequence of use and occupation - for example cruising licence.  If so, the Jacobs case is very unhelpful as it says that essentially “payments in consequence of use and occupation” is a term of art referring to payments made by certain irregular occupiers such as surviving relatives without a right of succession.

As a counter-argument you could cite CH/844/2002 which gives use and occupation a wider meaning that will encompass the payments made by boat dwellers that are not otherwise specifically covered by HB Reg 12.  In the traditional pecking order these cases are of equal rank as a JR decision by a single judge is regarded as being at about the same level as a single UT Judge/Commissioner.  I imagine it would be in the interests of boat dwellers if CH/844/2002 were to be favoured over Jacobs.

File Attachments

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Thanks Daphne

PandaNBTA
forum member

National Bargee Travellers Association, Reading

Send message

Total Posts: 32

Joined: 7 August 2012

HB Anorak you are correct in your assumption. Thank you for your analysis. We are very familiar with CH 844 but assumed that the Bristol case takes precedence as it was in the Court of Appeal. You have explained why the Commissioner in CH 844 did not consider him/herself to be bound by the earlier case.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

hence the bristol case is distinguishable if it is raised.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Bristol case was NOT in the Court of Appeal: very clear from the transcript that the decision below was an HB Review Board.  Not sure where that EWCA reference comes from: claimant was granted leave to appeal to CoA but nothing to suggest she took up the option.  If you read the several pages devoted to the lawyers arguing about costs you can see why none of the parties would have been comfortable taking it to CoA.

Therefore CH/844/2002 at least has a fighting chance