Does anyone know if the emptying of cess pits/ceptic tanks are eligible service charges for housing benefit?

In my view, no. HBR 12 excludes sewerage charges from being eligible. Even if a distinction could be drawn between water authority charges and private charges, I still think such charges are ineligible.

NB: There is some old case law where it was found that such charges WERE eligible (for IS?). However, the legislation was, so I understand, changed.

Regards

Last time I was claiming my place was a total cesspit and they paid HB in full......

(sorry)

Lol! Highly amusing.

I've had Social Fund grants for cesspit emptying in the past - I can't offhand think of a better definition of a family under pressure than an overflowing cesspit (don't ask me how I know- I might become hysterical!!)
pete

“Water charges” means–
(a) as respects England and Wales, any water and sewerage charges under Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Water Industry Act 1991(h).
(b) as respects Scotland, any water and sewerage charges established by Scottish Water under a charges scheme made under section 29A of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002(i) in so far as such charges are in respect of the dwelling which a person occupies as his home;

(Reg 2 2006 Regs)

If the cesspit is not being emptied by an "undertaker" appointed by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Water Services under the 1991 Act, it could be considered to be an eligible service charge as it does not come under the defintion of "water charges"(if the charge is a conditon of the tenancy) ....unless the phrase "allied environmental services" in sub para 3(b)(i) of Reg 12 is wide enough to encompass the private emptying of cess pits?

I think the case Kevin D refers to is R(IS)4/91 paragraph 17 of the appendix summs up the issues

"17. We now consider the instant cases in turn. We take first CIS/203/1989, that relating to the septic tank recurring charges. There is insufficient information to enable us to come to a final determination about this case and for the reasons given in its individual decision, it must be remitted for rehearing by another tribunal. But by way of guidance we can say this. If, as rather appears from what is contained in Mr. Rowland’s written submission, the arrangements giving rise to the recurring charges are contained in a private contract made by the claimant with a particular organisation limited to the purpose of emptying his septic tank then that will not qualify, according to our definition above, as a housing service charge. But if it is imposed upon him and others under, or by, the terms on which he holds his property, and that could include a statutory undertaker under a duty to empty septic tanks in the claimant’s area and for which it is required to make a charge, which he is then obliged to suffer and pay, then the result would be otherwise on the positive side at least. So the new tribunal will have to concentrate on the terms of the arrangement by which this septic tank is emptied. They will, if they come to conclusions thus far favourable to the claimant, then finally have to consider whether the service (and we emphasise it is the service and not the charge) is or is not connected with the provision of adequate accommodation. At this stage any part played by an outside contractor, by the nature of the arrangement, may prove fatal to the claim as not being concerned with the provision of adequate accommodation. The provision of adequate accommodation is a question of fact for the tribunal."

R(IS)4/91 was decided by a Tribunal of Commissioners and is the last word on the matter as fare as I can tell. There has been no significant change in either the IS or the HB legislationn in my view that makes R(IS)4/91 no longer good law.

In view of R(IS)4/91, I would say that if the emptying of the cess pit is a condition of the tenancy, it would be an eligible service charge for HB