Couples making separate HB claims in nightshelters

Hi all,

We run a large nightshelter housing 50+ residents, mostly single homeless claimants.

Several years ago an agreement was put in place with the LA whereby each member of a couple could reside in two separate rooms (thereby incurring two rental liabilities) whilst retaining a joint claim for DWP income benefits, and the HB would be awarded for each room.  This was put in place on the basis it is not appropriate for couples to live together in a room within such a large hostel for fire safety/over-occupancy reasons.

Unfortunately staff have moved on and this commitment wasn’t written down, so we are having to battle cases individually.

The alternative - asking residents to make separate ‘single’ claims for DWP income benefits (to line up with their respective HB claims) - might satisfy the HB system on paper puts all parties in a difficult (potentially fraudulent) position.

I would like to set a precedent that enables us to house couples with separate liabilities and be certain of both HB claims being eligible.  Fighting on a case by case basis carries risk to both resident and landlord.

Is anyone aware of any precedent / regs / case law that might help?

Many thanks!

can you not just give them a joint tenancy but based on the cost of two rooms?  wouldnt this come under supported/exempt accommodation so you wouldnt have the bedroom issue?

this is off the top of my head.  hopefully hb anorak comes along and answers you properly :)

I think the correct approach is to make separate claims for all benefits as two single people.  This will increase the amount they get from DWP to 2x single instead of 1x couple, but there is nothing dishonest or irregular about that.

To be a couple, two people must be members of the same household which requires them to have a degree of joint control and responsibility.  The closest analogy I can think of in case law would be cases where both members of a couple are occupying separate single rooms in a care home: CIS/671/1992 and R(IS) 1/99.  Both cases found that the claimants were not couples because they did not, for example, pool their resources, plan meals jointly, share responsibility for bills.  Apart from their emotional closeness there was nothing really to set them apart from any random two occupiers.

Hmm, caveat, if they see themselves as a “couple” and insist that’s the case then there will be issues (As you have stated).

This will not help with HB Anorak’s suggestions on the DWP benefits (Also the LA may actually decide not to follow the DWP decision), but depending on the facts, HBR 7(6)(c) could apply in your case?

“7.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, a person shall be
treated as occupying as his home the dwelling normally occupied as his home–
(a) by himself or, if he is a member of a family, by himself and his family; or….................”

“(6) Where a person is liable to make payments in respect of two (but not more than
two) dwellings, he shall be treated as occupying both dwellings as his home only–......”

“(c) in the case where, because of the number of persons referred to in paragraph
(1), they have been housed by a housing authority in two separate dwellings;
or…...”

CIS/671/92 was the lead case in R(IS)1/99 concerning five couples. Each couple occupied the same room (not seperate individual rooms) in a care home. The Commissioner decided they were not a “Couple” because they were not members of the same household. The reason being because there cannot be a ‘household’ unless there is a ‘domestic establishment’. A care home was not a ‘domestic establishment’ (following the decision in the case known as Pizzey (from memory a housing case concerning the original womens refuge set up by Erin Pizzey).

I would argue that for the purposes of HB two people living in the type of accomodation at issue who are a couple in the everyday sense would not be ‘couple’ within the meaning of “family” in SSCBA s137(1) and therefore do not fall within Reg 7.

The partners are not members of (each others) family. In other words as they are not a ‘couple’ because they are not members of the same household because a night shelter is not a domestic establishment. Therefore they cannot be required to make a claim as a couple and have their resourses etc aggrigated (even if they wanted to, or even if in practice they shared the same room within the shelter).

Even assuming it could be argued that they occupy a ‘household’ within the shelter, they occupy two seperate households because they cannot be a ‘couple’. From memory there is also some old Supp Ben? case law about the meaning of household where two single people who shared a rented room were found to be members of two seperate households (even though they shared the room) - but that may be a red herring.

So I can’t see how it can be argued that a couple living within a night shelter are anything other than two single claimants with their own seperate liability for rent.

Good point Peter, it was indeed double rooms in those cases.  There were four in all: one in CIS/671/1992 and three in R(IS)1/99 (looks like five at first sight, but two of the putative couples had two individual claims).  I should have had a quick re-read before posting.

But if anything that reinforces the point: even in a shared room it is difficult to be a couple in that kind of establishment, never mind separate rooms.

HB Anorak - 23 June 2017 04:02 PM

Good point Peter, it was indeed double rooms in those cases.  There were four in all: one in CIS/671/1992 and three in R(IS)1/99 (looks like five at first sight, but two of the putative couples had two individual claims).  I should have had a quick re-read before posting.

But if anything that reinforces the point: even in a shared room it is difficult to be a couple in that kind of establishment, never mind separate rooms.

They were my clients!