Hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

I have a client who is about to turn 18 years old, The Social Worker involved in the case has arranged a foster placement that will start when he turns 18 years old, the Local Authority will be paying (the massive) costs of the foster placement.

The Social Worker has asked whether it is possiable to claim HB on behalf of the young person in order to reduce the costs to the Social work department.

Does anyone know whether this is possiable, can a claim to HB be made while foster payments are in place. Also if you know any reference to Regs etc I would be most appreiative.

Scottish law BTW

Cheers

Sat 16-May-09 06:26 AM by Kevin D

"...whether it is possiable to claim HB on behalf of the young person in order to reduce the costs to the Social work department"

This response is unlikely to be universally popular, but nevertheless....

HB is not there to defray costs from the budget of Social Service Departments. HB is there to assist with genuine rent liabilities that naturally and properly exist. It appears there is no such liability in your client's case. Further, based on what has been stated, the creation of such a liability may well fall found of HBR 9(1)(l) - i.e. it is arguably being created to take advantage of the HB scheme (in which case, no HB would be payable).

There is another strand to this. If, for the sake of argument, the liability was genuine, would HB be payable? In truth, I'm not sure. Do Social Services have an overriding responsibility in any case to ensure your client has accommodation, irrespective of whether HB is (genuinely) payable? If so, it may well be that there is no legal basis for creating a liability in the first place.

Can you be more clear. An 18 year old entering a foster placement? Or is it an 18 year old who was in foster care, wants to remain with ex foster carer's and will be paying rent for occupying the accommodation. The latter is quite common but you will also need to check the impact on the circumstances of the ex foster carer(s).

Shaun

Sorry about the confusion. The Social Worker is using the term foster placement, a more correct description would be an adult placement. The client is leaving a residential school and is being placed by the Social Work Department in an adult placement arranged via a third party agency. The SWD will pay the agency, who then make payments to the lady and gentelemen who are providing the care and support.

The SWD are looking at HB and have been advised by the third party agency that HB is common in such cases. Altghough I am by no means an expert on this type of case it did seem to me to be pushing the boundaries of the HB regs.

I need to check out the contract between all parties in this case, but wonder if anyone has any expeierence of adult placements and if so what role does HB play in it. I have read comm decision CH/2726/2008, which deals with such a case, however, I am still not clear about the mechanics of this works.

It is normal in adult placement schemes or supported lodgings schemes for there to be a tenancy agreement between the service user as and the provider, so that the service user can claim HB and pay it to the provider as rent. The agreement should make clear how many meals are provided and what utilities are included so that the correct standard deductions can be made. If a significant proportion of the totla rent is for meals and utilities LHA rates do not apply. Meals and utilities are paid by the service user to the provider from his/her own earnings, benefit or other resources.

Unlike adult placements, in supported living the provider is usually (although by no means exclusively) not the landlord. A common example is. House owned by Anytown Housing Trust. Social Services ‘place’ 2 service users in it who share the entire house. Landlord gives service users tenancy agreements, HB paid. Social Services arrange with Othertown Care in the Community Ltd, who provide 2 care workers to provide 20 hours per week support. Social Services/Supporting People cover support costs. Tenants pay for their own utilities, food, etc.

Adult placements are just another way of doing this; the difference is that the accommodation and support are provided by the same person at a higher cost to Social Services. Under Supporting People adult placement providers who were not proving personal care were actively encouraged by LA’s to de-register and go down the HB route.

It was a reduced cost to the LA for a start as the support costs were covered by new funding streams. In the long run, if you took Supporting People funds out of it, the costs would fall to be born by the LA as a whole anyway and the HB way is more in line with central and local government’s ethos of more independence to service users.

For example, a person in an adult placement as a tenant/licensee (it makes no real difference which because as the landlord lives in the same building the tenant has no statutory protection) would have access to the severe disability premium as a proper tenant/licensee as opposed to not having access to it because he was classed as having a non-dependent living with him, have more control of his own money, would be responsible for buying his own food, etc.

DLA care component was also not previously payable were adult placement providers were registered under the old scheme. I don’t think the clock will be turned back on this any day soon. If the APP is not required to be registered then HB is legitimately payable subject to all the usual caveats on non-commerciality, contrivance, etc.

I take Kevin’s point but having been heavily involved in the transitional housing benefit/supporting people scheme, setting many of those arrangements up, drawing up tenancy/licensing agreements, de-registering people, drawing up support packages with providers, etc, I remain sceptical, as I saw the way Social Services and HB were made to collaborate in the enterprise as a corporate entity when it suited because extra funding was available by going down that route and that meant Social Services could protect its budget.

I'm not sure whether the position was any diferent in Scotland. Someone else might know.

Based on the new info, HB would potentially be payable (so long as it isn't a swiz by Social Services).

HOWEVER, unless the L/L is a Housing Association (whether or not a registered RSL); or a registered charity, or a voluntary organisation, or a non-met county council in England; it will not be "exempt accommodation". i.e. the LHA rate will apply, irrespective of the care arrangements.

A word of caution. There are one or two organisations / individuals who *may* offer "suggestions" as to how you can set up the arrangements to "maximise" HB by, amongst other things, bringing it within the definition of "exempt accommodation". My advice? Avoid at all costs. It will massively increase the chances of the LA giving serious consideration to "taking advantage" (i.e. "contrivance").

For transparency, I have formally advised (and continue to do so) a number of LAs where "exempt accommodation" has been at issue.

In Northumberland we do have a supported lodgings scheme (as distinct from supported living or housing) where vulnerable young people, often care leavers, are placed in a family setting. It operates in essentially the same way as an adult placement scheme, the difference being that in an APS the service users have a disability, whereas in supported lodgings the young people generally do not. There is a rent liability, entitlement to HB, and extra money paid to the provider from the Supporting People budget.

I echo Kevin's note of caution. When doing the THB stuff we came across certain private consultants helping organizations to make inflated claims for a huge consultancy fee. Although we also came across one or two honest and knowledgeable ones also.