Hi all

Does anyone know of any case law dealing with the definition of "fully maintained" with regards to religious orders. I seem to remember seeing something about this many moons ago. Or maybe I just dreamt it.

Regards
Paul

topic 169 in the pension credit thread has a little bit on this subject.
What are you looking for?

here's the link to the previous Pension Credit thread suggested by Carol -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=169&mode=full

I couldn't find anything in Bonner but teh CPAG book has a little bit in teh HB regs. It's HB(R)7 (1)J.
I think entitlement will hinge on the nature of the religious order.

or God (s?) moving in mysterious ways?

I don't think the nature of the religious order is necessarily relevant in these cases (my colleague's cases that is). In the IS regs a person is not entitled to IS if they are member of and fully (wholly for HB) maintained by that order.

So if a person is not fully maintained then they are entitled. In my colleague's cases the accommodation is provided but they buy their own food and pay for their own daily living expenses. One person in the appeals section of the DWP seems to agree with us but I just wanted to see if the definition of "fully maintained" had been clarified by the commissioner's or higher courts.

Regards
Paul

Take a look at R v Sheffield Housing Benefits Review Board Ex Parte Smith; Rugby Borough Council Housing Benefits Review Board Ex Parte Harrison; Daventry District Council Housing Benefits Review Board Ex Parte Bodden; also Re Addy and others (Court of Appeal) 18 March 1998. These concern HB and members of the Jesus Fellowship Community Church.

Thanks Ruth. Sounds just the ticket. Does anyone have copies of these. I cannot find them online.

Regards
Paul

I found one HB case on the OSSCSC website: www.osscsc/highlighted_decisions_december_2003.htm
commissioner Jacobs heard the original appeal. Paul Stagg represented the appellents at the House of Lords.
The argument was about whether it was a commercial agreement and various HR issues.

carol was it a court of appeal case ?

... have found Campbell & Ors Appellants - and - (1) South Northamptonshire District Council (2) Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions Respon-dents

'This appeal is from a decision of Mr Commissioner Jacobs given on 20th May 2003 when sitting as a Social Security and Child Support Commissioner. He dismissed appeals in 5 cases decided by Mr Richard Poynter, the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. Mr Commissioner Jacobs gave permission to appeal to this Court. The 5 appellants claim housing benefit ("HB"). This has wrongly been refused contends their counsel, Mr James Goudie QC.

The decisions below set out with commendable clarity the details of the facts. Essentially the position is simply as follows. All the appellants are members of the Jesus Fellowship Church. They have become what are called "Style Three" members. This means that they have agreed to live communally, pooling their income in a common purse, and giving all their capital to the Church Trust. They occupy properties owned by the Church under agreements of various types. These agreements are genuine legal agreements, not shams. There are real legal liabilities for rent. It is not suggested the agreements were created to take advantage of the HB scheme.'