Care leaver under 22, who would be eligible for the single room rent if single, is a member of a couple and HB are saying that, therefore, no longer eligible for single room rent - paying them shared room rate as they live in shared accomodation. CPAG Handbook and CPAG's HB/CTB Legislation both say that exemption applies where person or partner is a relevant care leaver.

Their argument is that relevant Reg 2(1) definition of 'young individual' only applies to single claimants.

Has anyone come across this before? Any case law?

Tony

If the claimant were a young individual that would be true.

However, the sub-para's of the definition of young individual are 'exceptions' to the basis rule that a 'young individual' is a single claimant under 25.

They're just reading it wrong I think...

Thanks for responding Tony

I agree with you and I had already explained this to HB. I wanted a second opinion as HB dept have taken advice from DWP Housing Support Division and sent me the email response. It is hardly definitive in its analysis but I expect we will have to go to tribunal as I doubt HB will accept my explanation in the face of it. I have tried to be as clear with them as I can but I expect they think I am trying to pull the wool over their eyes with legal mumbo-jumbo!

I was wondering whether anyone else has come up against this before given DWP advice or maybe High Peak Borough Council are the only people who would raise the issue.

Tony

My reading of reg 13D (2)(a)(ii) is as follows.

The para (which excludes people from the shared room rate) goes:

"...neither the claimant nor his partner (where he has one) is a person to whom paragraph 14 of Sch 3 (severe disability premium) applies, or to whom the circumstances in any of paragraphs (b) to (f) of the definition of young individual applies (certain care leavers)."

Now there can be no doubt that the first "to whom" relates back to "is a person" and thus to both the claimant AND any partner, and grammatically therefore the second "to whom" must have the same antecedent, ie "a person" and thus to both the claimant or his partner.

To read the second altenative as relating to the claimant alone when the first indubitably relates to the parner too is simply pervesrs and, worse, illiterate.

I am fortified in this conclusion (as the courts say) by the commentary in the CPAG HB legislation book that the shared accom rate doesn't apply to partners too. And since two of the learned editors of this volume are Tribunal judges......

I am grateful for both of your comments - my reading of it is exactly as you both indicate - as I have not come across it before I just wanted some confirmation as the outcome has some impact on the help provided here by the After Care Team.

Tony

Oh me of little faith! They have revised the decision.

Thanks Tony and Ariadne for your interest and help

Tony

So I should damn well hope!