× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

DHP judicial review to be heard this week

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Legal challenge regarding Sandwell Council’s policy of taking disability benefits into account when assessing whether vulnerable people are eligible for housing support is to be held this week.

http://www.irwinmitchell.com/newsandmedia/2014/October/legal-challenge-on-sandwell-councils-dhp-policy-brought-by-couple-affected-by-bedroom-tax

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

High Court’s judgment has been issued today

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/890.html

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Nearly Legal blog on the judgement

Discretionary Housing Payments – the trouble with DLA

Tom B (WRAMAS)
forum member

WRAMAS - Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 454

Joined: 7 January 2013

“The DHP calculation has been made to take into account the level of your ongoing income from April 2013, this includes your Income Support, your Incapacity Benefit, Carer’s Allowance, your [DLA(c)] and your Wife’s [DLA(c)], which totals £311.95 per week. The amount you and your wife receive in respect of [DLA(m)] is excluded from the income assessment for DHP purposes.

Deducted from the income assessment is the expenditure you declared on your DHP application, which totals £295.32 per week, therefore when your expenditure is deducted from the income used in the DHP calculation you have a surplus income of £16.63 per week (£311.95-£295.32).

As noted by a colleague - looks like they are under-claiming… Double SDPs anyone?

Jon Blackwell
forum member

Programmer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program, Brighton

Send message

Total Posts: 501

Joined: 18 June 2010

tbidmead - 31 March 2015 05:07 PM

As noted by a colleague - looks like they are under-claiming… Double SDPs anyone?

The total matches one care-highest and one care-lowest (with DP+EDP+CP in the IS) so possibly not.

 

samiam
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 54

Joined: 1 April 2015

The judgement says:

“He has been assessed as requiring the higher rate of DLA(m) and the middle rate for DLA(c). Mr Hardy’s wife also suffers from arthritis and is undergoing regular orthopaedic surgery. It is anticipated that she will soon require the use of a wheelchair. She is in receipt of the higher rate for both DLA(m) and DLA(c).”

But I guess it must be incorrect.

Jon Blackwell
forum member

Programmer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program, Brighton

Send message

Total Posts: 501

Joined: 18 June 2010

samiam - 01 April 2015 12:03 PM

The judgement says:

“He has been assessed as requiring the higher rate of DLA(m) and the middle rate for DLA(c). Mr Hardy’s wife also suffers from arthritis and is undergoing regular orthopaedic surgery. It is anticipated that she will soon require the use of a wheelchair. She is in receipt of the higher rate for both DLA(m) and DLA(c).”

But I guess it must be incorrect.

Good point -sorry - so maybe reassessed or just an error .  2 x SDP definitely a possible in that case.