Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
DHP judicial review to be heard this week
Legal challenge regarding Sandwell Council’s policy of taking disability benefits into account when assessing whether vulnerable people are eligible for housing support is to be held this week.
High Court’s judgment has been issued today
News release from Irwin Mitchell
Successful challenge of Sandwell Council’s benefits policy ‘could have consequences across country’
Nearly Legal blog on the judgement
“The DHP calculation has been made to take into account the level of your ongoing income from April 2013, this includes your Income Support, your Incapacity Benefit, Carer’s Allowance, your [DLA(c)] and your Wife’s [DLA(c)], which totals £311.95 per week. The amount you and your wife receive in respect of [DLA(m)] is excluded from the income assessment for DHP purposes.
Deducted from the income assessment is the expenditure you declared on your DHP application, which totals £295.32 per week, therefore when your expenditure is deducted from the income used in the DHP calculation you have a surplus income of £16.63 per week (£311.95-£295.32).
As noted by a colleague - looks like they are under-claiming… Double SDPs anyone?
As noted by a colleague - looks like they are under-claiming… Double SDPs anyone?
The total matches one care-highest and one care-lowest (with DP+EDP+CP in the IS) so possibly not.
The judgement says:
“He has been assessed as requiring the higher rate of DLA(m) and the middle rate for DLA(c). Mr Hardy’s wife also suffers from arthritis and is undergoing regular orthopaedic surgery. It is anticipated that she will soon require the use of a wheelchair. She is in receipt of the higher rate for both DLA(m) and DLA(c).”
But I guess it must be incorrect.
The judgement says:
“He has been assessed as requiring the higher rate of DLA(m) and the middle rate for DLA(c). Mr Hardy’s wife also suffers from arthritis and is undergoing regular orthopaedic surgery. It is anticipated that she will soon require the use of a wheelchair. She is in receipt of the higher rate for both DLA(m) and DLA(c).”
But I guess it must be incorrect.
Good point -sorry - so maybe reassessed or just an error . 2 x SDP definitely a possible in that case.