Hi,

Am dealing with a local authority HB department regarding an extra care scheme. Extra care accomodation is basically sheltered accomodation but with care and support staff and facilities on site. To be allocated a flat at the scheme potential residents need to go through the local authorites allocation panel to ensure they have the relevant needs, care and support to warrant them moving into extra care accomodation.

One particular resident has had their HB restricted. When I've contacted the HB department to find out why this is the case when other residents haven't had problems I was given the following answer:

HB was restricted because the HB department, when looking at the claim, made the decision that this resident didn't need the support and care that was provided in the extra care accomodation so they restricted the rent to a level that they deemed reasonable for the type of accomodation she needed.

I was staggered by this. Despite me telling them that this resident was allocated the flat on the basis of their own local authorities allocations panel they are refusing to budge and continuing to restrict the HB which is causing the resident real concern as they are struggling to pay the shortfall. We've even provided the HB department with a copy of the care plan to show the need is there.

I've never come across this before and I didn't think the HB department has the authority to be able to make a decision like this (particularly when we have provided evidence to show the need is there) but I could be wrong?

Has anyone else come across anything similar? If anyone has, can you let me know what course of action was taken and if it was resolved successfully.

Other than making a complaint, I'm not sure what steps to take to try and resolve this for the resident.

Any advice or comments gratefully received

Cheers

John

The LA is able to decide (and I am not saying I agree with this decision in this case just letting you know what they can decide) that the care and support shown in the tenancy agreement/care agreement is not in reality being provided, or that the amount provided is so small that it is de minimus, and the accommodation is therefore not exempt accommodation.

Your tenant can of course challenge this decision by lodging an appeal.

Thanks for your reply.

This issue is only in relation to one particular resident - all other HB claims are being assessed on the full rent and all of the eligible service charge.

To be allocated a flat in this particular extra care scheme, a person must need a minimum number of hours care and/or support each week which is why the prospective residents have to go through social services and an allocations panel.

Just to clarify then, if social services carry out an assessment and that assessment identifies care/support needs and the person goes before an allocations panel who recognise that the person has these needs and allocates a flat in extra care accommodation, the HB department is still able to restrict the HB on the basis that the person doesn't need this, despite the evidence from their own social services department?

Cheers

John

Wed 31-Mar-10 02:12 PM by AGodfrey

Appeal the decision and request that the tribunal service make a direction that a presenting officer attends the hearing. I would like to see them explain to the judge that the claimant does not require the care and support after their own social services department has made an assessment and allocated them accomodation based on their findings.

Just one point... The crux is not about the assessment of care, support of supervision ("CSS"). What counts is the CSS actually being provided as a fact. If CSS is being provided,

In one H21 extra-care scheme, a log is kept of all instances of CSS being provided. Assuming that is the procedure at all H21 EC schemes, it shouldn't be too difficult to demonstrate that CSS is actually being provided if it is.

John: If you'd like to discuss this briefly in a telecon, I'm happy to do so - I just need confirmation of which H21 office you're based at.

I think that in this case the question is about the assessment of need. The council do not seem to be saying that the support is not provided, but that it is not needed to this level.

I think that there has been a recent upper tribunal decision to the effect that a decision maker is not bound by a social worker's assessment, But it is obvioulsy a very powerful tool. However I have done one set of appeals for a large supported project for young people. It was ruled that some residents needed the support provided- no rent restriction. Some needed a lower level as support as might be provided by a "caring landlady" and some needed no support at all.

3 different rates were to be paid. Me and the LA rep went outside and cooked up our own deal to avoid having to reassess every single claim.

Kevin, you obviously know about Housing 21 and how the extra care schemes operate. You're absolutely right in saying that a log is kept of the CSS that is being provided. We've given this information to the HB department who still won't accept it. Thanks for the offer of a telecon to discuss this further -as for which office I work in, I don't, I work from home but if you wanted any more details on this case, if you drop me an email with your contact details I'll get in touch with you to discuss further.

I've had some more information from the HB department and they are now using the argument that because the person doesn't receive any disability benefits, she doesn't have any care or support needs.

Chris - you're right in what you are saying in that everyone has different care/support needs. To be allocated a flat in Housing 21 extra care schemes a person must have it decided by social services that they have a minimum amount of care/support hours they need each week (it varies from between 4 and 10 hours per week - the actual number of hours is decided by the LA). If someone needs less that the miminum requirement they wouldn't be allocated a flat. So, to be allocated a flat a person must be receiving this mimimum amount of care. As far as the rent and service charge goes, everyone pays the same as it's calculated on this minimum care requirement - if people need more care/support than the minimum, care packages are put in place and these are paid for seperately to the rent/service charge so this shouldn't be an issue as far as HB goes.

An appeal has been lodged so it's a case of wait and see. Thanks for all the advice and I'll keep you posted.

Cheers

John

Wed 07-Apr-10 12:53 PM by nevip

"I've had some more information from the HB department and they are now using the argument that because the person doesn't receive any disability benefits, she doesn't have any care or support needs".

Whatever the merits of the arguments for or against in this post you just have to love the wild presumptions that some administrative authorities succumb to. I'm sure we all know disabled people who don't get disability benefits and need some care or support, work colleagues for instance (those who haven't claimed DLA).

Must admit, I was somewhat surprised by this latest statement from the HB department. Am intrigued to see how it will hold up should it go to tribunal.

As you've correctly said, we all know people who could get disability benefits and don't for one reason or another.

It's times like this I wish I had hair so I could tear it out.....

The argument that because someone does not get DLA they have no care and support needs is quite common, as is the variant that if someone is not over pension credit age, claiming as sick, or with children then they cannot be vulnerable.

Tribunals won't wear it though