Definition of Supported Housing

Hi all

We have a case of a 60 year old man who has been moved into sheltered accommodation which is warden controlled.  The council has refused to accept a HB application from him which has resulted in a delay in his UC claim being submitted.

I’ve been looking at Schedule 1 para 3a of the UC Regs but there is no definition of what constitutes supported housing

My gut feeling is warden controlled accommodation does not fit in to this but I was wondering if there is any HB guidance on this matter or is it up to LAs to decide.

Does anyone have any thought on this case?  I’m sure HB Anorak will know the answer.

Tina

HB Anorak will certainly be able to help more, but I have seen some guidance here. See in particular paragraph 4.1031. I’m not sure if this helps you at all though!

It’s not Supported Housing in the regs it’s “Specified Accomodation”.

It must be provided, inter alia, by a “relevant body” so certain county councils, housing associations, charities or voluntary organisations; the person must have been admitted because of a need for Care, Support or Supervision (CSS) and that CSS must be being provided

Our HB section want to see a care plan and don’t accept the CSS is being provided simply in warden controlled flats; the supervisory presence of a warden is de minimis on their interpretation. I think that’s questionable but the problem is that they can’t accept the claim, never mind make a decision that can be appealed so it’d be JR to scrutinise it.

To add, I think the reg was drafted with “Supervision” as well as Care & Support (which is lifted from the Care Act 2014) to catch warden controlled situations.

The meaning of “support” has generated several hundredweight of UT output.  It’s an enormous subject with few hard and fast answers.

The definition has four limbs:

Category 1 - exempt accommodation, which means the landlord is a non-profit body or English County Council and the landlord itself provides the claimant with care, support or supervision, or someone who is directly answerable to the landlord does so on the landlord’s behalf.  There is no requirement that the claimant was admitted to the accommodation in order to receive support etc: what started as a general needs letting can turn out to be exempt accommodation if the landlord does in fact provide support etc.  For example, there was a case involving Stirling University where a disabled student living in campus accommodation happened to receive support from the Uni - that made it exempt accommodation. 

Category 2 - accommodation provided by the same bodies that provide exempt accommodation but where the landlord itself neither provides nor commissions support.  In these cases, support etc is provided by a third party who is not answerable to the landlord when providing support etc.  One example is supported living where Adult Social Care commissions round the clock care and support from (usually) a commercial supplier who is separate from the landlord.  Category 2 does require the claimant to have been admitted to the accommodation because of their support needs

In both Cats 1 and 2 support etc needs to be more than de minimis, but that is not an easy thing to measure.

Categories 3 and 4 are more straightforward: DV refuge in the non-profit or local authority sector, and hostels run directly by the same Council that administers HB.

55+ warden assisted schemes are difficult.  Most local authorities will take the view that the presence of the warden and the apparatus to summon him/her on its own is de minimis.  I’m not sure this satisfies “supervision” - DLA case law on supervision talks about the person doing the supervising being “present on guard”.  A warden somewhere on site but not in close physical proximity to the claimant (like not in the same room) is unlikely to be actively supervising.  It could still be support … but not for a lot of tenants who simply don’t use the service.

I do think that the OP’s client is entitled to a decision on his claim - how else can he dispute these issues that we are discussing (without 100% agreement) here?  Article 7 of the No 23 Order says he “may not make a claim” for HB; but the right to appeal arises when the Council makes a “decision on a claim” (paras 1 and 6 of the CSP&SS; Act 2000).  How can there be a decision on a claim if you cannot make a claim?  I see a parallel here with Neil Wood v Sec of State for W&P (2003).  If an application for supersession is rejected, this requires a right of appeal as if it were a superseding decision, otherwise you cannot get past the first knock-back from a front line officer.  I would argue the same principle applies to claims.