Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
absence from home / detention under mental health act / human rights
That has to be a District Tribunal Judge (full-timer). Don’t recognise the signature.
I’d be very surprised if the UT upholds the decision. It seems to be one of a growing number of cases where a FtT WANTS the law to say one thing and makes a decision accordingly. In this case, the not terribly disguised invitation to go to UT seems to say it all - “Please make a definitive decision so we (the FtT) don’t have to worry about this kind of thing”. Also, by finding for the claimant, it puts the ball squarely at the feet of the LAs and, quite probably, the DWP so the pro-active work must be done by those parties. Not, of course, that I am suggesting for one moment the FtT would ever decide with these motives in mind…. curse the very thought…
The first-tier Tribunal may on occasions suggest an appeal if the judge thinks that there is an isssue of legal difficulty on which there is no case law. the judge will either decide on the face of the law or decide on the basis of a human rights or EU law argument. If there is a realistic prospect of the same issue arising again then it is bettter to get it decided at a binding level than to have every new appeal decided by a different FTT with disparate result, which helps nobody.
I suppose the reason for upholding the appeal in a dubious case puts the burden of appealing upwards on the relevant departmnt and forces them to make the running.
my partner a mental health social worker so i was telling her about this today; she thought it would be very unusual as in her experience the vast majority of sectioned people are not in for that length of time, usually, apparently, for that length of time it’s a “forensic section” (which i gather is something to do with whether people have committed offences S38 MHA).
from a lay perspective i would have thought that someone who does have fragile mental health is going to be in a better mental place if, on release from their section, they go back to their own place, rather than have to wrestle with finding somewhere new and trying to find out what has happened to their stuff and retrieve it…
I am doing a housing benefit appeal for a client who is in just this position, been in a psychiatric hospital for five years while retaining her own home. The local authority has only just this year decided she is not entitled to HB any more, though they have not billed her for any overpayment. This statement of reasons should at least be persuasive. Thank you for posting it.
...held that the rule that HB must cease when someone is absent for 52 week because they’re detained under s3 of the MHA is incompatible with Art 14 ECHR. The tribunal read in words to make the provision compatible, and set aside the councils decisions that HB should cease after 52 weeks and made a finding that all 3 claimants were eligible for HB for time that they were absent beyond 52 week period.
*bump*
Does anyone know if this has gone to the UT and, if so, the current status of the case?
Update (answering my own question).
One of the LAs has kindly confirmed that the FtTD has indeed been appealed to the UT and a hearing date is awaited.