bradford l.a. (usually v.good)are refusing to pay HB for (eligible)service charges on an "LSE" (leasehold scheme for the elderly) because they say there are no rent charges, only service charges. these schemes are shared ownership in that residents can own 25%, 50% or 75%. they can never own 100% in these particular schemes. we do not charge rent on the remaining 25% that is "ours" because we get housing corp subsidy for it anyway. however part of the service charge is for maintenance and management that would under "normal" schemes be charged as "rent" - we keep it as a service charge because the cost to us is 100% whatever the % the resident actually owns- if it was "rent" it would have to be charged at 25% or 50% of the cost, or whatever. Bradford say if we had described it as "rent" they would probably pay it! Now my argument is (1) there's nothing in reg 10(2)- which allows RSL shared ownership schemes to be paid hb- to say there has to be a "rent" element as well as a "service charge" and (2) that for the purposes of paying HB, the service charges are "gross rent" even if they're not"net" or "basic" rent. But so far im not winning. rather than have to go to appeal does anyone have any other convincing arguments? thanks. (by the way these particular tenants would not qualify for guarantee pension credit so no good claiming the service charges as housing costs that way)

Have a look at the analysis to Reg 10 in Findlay.

Put simply, under Reg 10, service charges are eligible as are any payments that are "in respect of or in consequence of use and occupation of the dwelling", unless specifically deemed ineligible under Reg 10(2).

The question for HB is not whether or not someone is liable to pay "rent", but whthere or not someone is liable to make periodical peyments in respcet of occupation of his home, and whether they are or are not speifically eligible under Reg 10.

There is nothing in Reg 10 making these payments ineligible

brilliant, thanks. will report back.