× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Urgent advice needed! Liability for rent/HB refused

Liz S
forum member

Welfare specialist and appeals officer - Herefordshire Council Welfare Rights Team

Send message

Total Posts: 179

Joined: 17 June 2010

We have a case where we have a profundly disabled adult residing in a specially built bungalow provided by their parents as Social Care/RSLs unable to provide suitable accommodation, the issue here is one of liability for rent as the bungalow is owned by parents and our client has huge communication difficulties and is unable to sign or understand the concept of a formal agreement but they can display emotion ie happy or sad.

The ‘tenancy’ was signed on their behalf by one of the circle of carers who all make joint decisions for our client but this has been refused as a valid agreement by housing benefit although council tax benefit has been awarded!

We attached a copy of another case to support application - see below

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j3423/CH 0171 2011-01.doc

This is a very difficult case, the family are now applying to Court of Protection for formal legal order but can anyone suggest anything else we can do to try and get the HB decision revised?

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 2004

Joined: 16 June 2010

Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2012) UKUT 12 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 5

— The UT judge reviewed his previous decision because he had overlooked a legislative provision which could have had a material effect on the decision: in this case MCA 2005 s7, which provides that ‘If necessary goods or services are supplied to a person who lacks capacity to contract for the supply, he must pay a reasonable price for them.’ (1) Although the purported tenancy agreement between P and her father was void because the lack of capacity was known, under s7 P was still ‘liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling which she occupies as her home’ so she was entitled to benefits under the Housing Benefits Regulations 2006. (2) Even if ‘services’ in s7 is not wide enough to cover the provision of accommodation, the common law rules as to necessaries survive and the provision of accommodation is an obvious necessary.

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

here’s a link to revised version of CH/171/2011 -

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3423