× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

HB and Non Dep sleeping on the sofa

JoW
forum member

Financial inclusion manager - Wythenshawe Community Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 343

Joined: 7 September 2012

A bit of an unusual situation.

Tenant lives in a 2 bed house. She has a non dep friend living with her and HB charge a NDD for him. The non dep’s adult son has moved in with them and sleeps on the sofa. HB have only calculated one non dep (the older friend) and nothing for the son. She has advised HB that the son is there. Can they not charge a Non Dep Deduction where there is no bedroom for them? Or is it assumed that the situation can only be temporary and therefore non NDD?

Thanks in advance

andyrichards
forum member

City services - Brighton and Hove City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 204

Joined: 3 January 2013

Deductions would apply (depending on circumstances) for any non-dep normally residing with the claimant.  I don’t think having a bedroom is necessarily determinative of that.

In this case, so you know whether the LA has actually made a decision yet?

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

I would argue that sofa surfing in this manner probably does not make make someone a non dep as defined in Regulation 3:

“any person, except someone to whom paragraph (2) applies, who normally resides with a claimant or with whom a claimant normally resides.”

“Normally reside” must mean more than merely “reside”.  It is a matter of fact and degree, but ” normally reside” has connotations of permanence. This was recognised by Commisioner Walker at paragraph 7 of CIS/14850/1996:

”    7. I have much sympathy with the adjudicating authorities in this case, including the tribunal, but I am not entirely satisfied that the issue has been sufficiently dealt with below. I start with the adjudication officer’s point that the issue has really been settled by the dictum of Lord Slynn in Bate. That case, on that occasion before the House of Lords, had as its central relevant issue the question whether, as concluded by the Court of Appeal, “residing with” indicated a relationship of dominance and subservience in the sense that the person who was resided with had some legal interest in the dwelling and the person who resided with that person was there in a subordinate position. Lord Slynn concluded in that context that “residing with” meant “living with”. He answered Glidewell L J’s suggestion below that for a husband and wife the normal phrase would be that they “lived together” by observing that the act of living together meant that he lived (resided) with her and she lived (resided) with him. But this case concerns not whether there is a relationship between the individuals concerned and its nature but the prior question of what is in law necessary to establish or prove residence. I note that at least one version of the shorter Oxford English Dictionary provides for the definition of “reside” :-
“to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one settled or usual abode, to live, in or at a particular place .....”
and the primary meaning of residence repeats the concept about a usual dwelling place or abode. And there is the word with which Lord Slynn did not deal with, nor had he need to deal with, in circumstances of Bate, namely:- “normally”.
That seems to me to add some emphasis, at least for the purpose of a case such as the present, that the dwelling must be, if not permanently at least for a time sufficient to allow the house concerned to be regarded as, the individual’s usual abode. Determination of that issue, as it seems to me, requires a rather deeper consideration than has been provided for this case thus far”

The issue had previously been considered in CSIS /100/1993.  It was again considered in the housing benefit context in CH/3957/2007

[ Edited: 20 May 2016 at 04:09 pm by Stainsby ]

File Attachments

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

This is going to be an issue when Housing Benefit gets withdrawn for 18-21 year old from April next year. We will get more sofa surfing. My point is that if someone is sofa surfing, as they otherwise would otherwise be homeless, then they should not be a non-dep.  If the above case you can show that the Adult son lost his home, as opposed to moving in by choice, I think (hell I don’t know) then there should be no non dep deduction as he is in effect between homes, rather than normally resident.

JoW
forum member

Financial inclusion manager - Wythenshawe Community Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 343

Joined: 7 September 2012

The tenant says she has informed HB so assuming she has we are presuming he can’t be classed as “normally resident” as he doesn’t have a room. Seems like it is a grey area.

Thanks

bristol_1
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 241

Joined: 7 September 2015

This is a related query - is there anything to stop HB being paid to a lodger who doesn’t actually have the use of a bedroom?
My client is staying on someone’s sofa, and has agreed to pay them £350/pcm for this, he is subletting from another private tenant. He is in between houses having been evicted from his previous private tenancy and is looking for further accommodation.  My instinct is that HB will decide that my client is not ‘normally residing’ there as it is a temporary situation until he find new accommodation, but there seems to be a fairly strong commitment by the other tenant to kick him out if he can’t pay, so it could be regarded as a commercial agreement.
Another barrier is that the other tenant is likely breaking the terms of her own tenancy agreement and speaks no English, so she may be unwilling to confirm that that there is an agreement to pay rent for the sublet.

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

Theoretically no, if the “accommodation” is home so be it, but as you can see from above it’s never that simple.