Specified accommodation / avoiding UC housing costs

We are having some issues about whether the Shared Lives scheme counts as specified accommodation, does anyone have case law/previous cases that might help?

Client is 19 in full service UC area. Getting PIP DL and ESA-IR so they are entitled to HB/housing costs. They have just moved into a Shared Lives placement and have a licence agreement.

In their local authority (Bournemouth), the Shared Lives scheme is run by the council. We made an application for HB and it was turned down as they have said Shared Lives doesn’t count as ‘specified accommodation’.

My understanding was that someone could still get HB if they rent from a HA/charity/voluntary org and get care and support. I would have thought Shared Lives would qualify, but given the scheme in Bournemouth is run by the Local Authority does this mean the client is going to have to apply for housing costs via UC instead?

Obviously we want to avoid UC if possible so they keep the SDP, so any advice would be much appreciated!

Two answers to this: simple answer, and Bournemouth answer.

Simple answer: shared lives is not specified accommodation because the landlord is a private individual.  Adult Social Care will have facilitated an introduction and they will be paying a fee to the householder/landlord/carer, but in order to attract benefit for the rent there has to be a separate agreement between the householder/landlord/carer and the vulnerable adult.  All four types of specified accommodation require the landlord to be a charity, voluntary organisation, housing association, or ....

- the same council that does the HB, but only if the accommodation is a hostel or DV refuge (N/A to shared lives), or
- a non metropolitan county council in England.  Which brings me to the Bournemouth answer ...

For reasons that are too complicated to go into here (let me know if you want the full analysis), it is very strongly arguable that unitary authorities like Bournemouth satisfy the landlord condition for one category of specified accommodation: exempt accommodation proper where the care/support is provided by or on behalf of the landlord.  This is because Bournemouth is a non-met county council by virtue of transitional rules associated with local government reform - as I say, let me know if you want the full analysis.  The care/support box is ticked easily enough in a shared lives placement: Bournemouth adult social care is ultimately funding it.  But is Bournemouth also the landlord?  In a conventional shared lives arrangement, no: the landlord is the private individual in whose home the claimant lives.  So it’s not specified accommodation and the claimant gets a UC housing element at the shared accommodation rate or self contained one-bed rate or even two bed rate depending on age and PIP/DLA rate.  But if Bournemouth Council has somehow interposed itself between the householder/landlord/carer and it is the Council that provides the accommodation directly to the claimant, it will be specified accommodation.

I have to say I do not expect that will be the case - I would expect this to be a conventional shared lives arrangement where the claimant’s landlord is a private individual.  If that is correct, it is not specified accommodation.

Thank you so much for your (amazingly detailed!) response.

Frustratingly, their care is being funded by Dorset CC so I think there is no way to argue it is specified based on what you’ve said. Having done the numbers I think they would be better off staying on ESA and paying their rent than moving to UC, particularly if they risk being in the LCW group or may move to specified accommodation in future. It’s a tricky balancing act…

Thanks again for your help!

In one regard that makes it more straightforward: the commissioning authority most certainly is non met CC. But the landlord issue will still be the problem. You want DCC to be the landlord but they probably aren’t.