Non dependant deductions

My client is in receipt of SPC and lives in LA rented accomodation.
Her granddaughter’s ex boyfriend became homeless and she took him in. HB are treating him as a non dependant and are applying the relevant non dependant deduction. Her non dependant then paid her the amount of the non dependant deductions so that she would not lose out. Despite this PC treated him as a lodger, disregarded £20 of the amount he was paying client and deducted the rest from her SPC. We appealed this decision, because there should be no non dependant deductions for SPC. The appeal was unsuccessful, so we requested a Statement of Reasons. The chair states that it appears to him the person residing with my client is effectively both a non dependant and a lodger , which he states are not mutually exclusive and quotes para 14 to Sch 2 of SPC regs. My reading of this reg indicates that it refers to SPC housing costs. My client does not have housing costs included with her SPC as she is a tenant.. Chair also quotes SPC Reg 15(e) - she was receiving payment from him which should be declared and classed as income.
I think I have grounds to apeal to Upper Tribunal - time limit 20/05/2011 - S of R got lost inour system and I’ve only just found them. Can someone give me a second opinion please.

You have been most helpful. I was looking at at it incorrectly. I was treating non dependants re SPC in the same way as with benefits other than SPC - eg JSA, ESA etc., but as you point out there is a difference in payments defined as “contractual liability” and those refered to as “agreements” .Therefore, although para 14, Sch 2 was misquoted it is not going to be productive to take the case to the Upper Tribunal, as the outcome for my client would remain the same.
Many thanks again for you assistance.

Aaargh!! I think you’re right, but its last minute work. I have faxed and posted application to appeal to Upper Tribunal and as you say I can withdraw . I’m not going to give my client too much hope of success. As you point out we have to give it a go.
Thanks again.

This was my original reasoning when I took on the case and I was suprised when we lost.
We will keep going and I hpoe I have not misinterpreeted the regulations!
I appreciate your help - Thanks

It is clear from reg 15(5)(e) that prescribed income is both board and lodging payments.  Board and lodging is defined in reg 1 as the provision of accommodation and some meals.  So I think these terms are pretty straightforward and are not terms of art.  If you give someone a bed and the appropriate meals then you are providing board and lodging.

If you are not providing meals then I think the situation gets a little subtler.  Then one turns to para 9 of schedule 4 of the PC Regs, which refers to rent.  Rent is not defined in the regs, the Act or the Admin Act.  Its definition in the HB Regs refers to payments “in respect of a dwelling” but this is not exhaustive.  “In respect of a dwelling”, here, being the key phrase as to what is usually meant by rent, at least, for HB purposes, not directly relevant for PC.  I refer to it as an illustration of how the word rent is used in benefit law.

One dictionary definition of rent in the Oxford paperback version defines rent as “payment made periodically for the use of land or accommodation…”  My view, on the whole, is that the definition of rent is quite narrow in terms of it being directly connected to the use of the land or accommodation itself and not where it arises from some other purpose (i.e. to compensate the householder for reduced HB) even though that is a consequence of the use of the land or accommodation.

In other words, the payments arise from some contractual agreement from the householder acting in some capacity as a landlord.  To my mind, it matters not that that arrangement has not been formalized by any kind of signed writing.  It is the nature of what the payments are intended for that is the crux of the matter.  I, personally, would not describe the payments as rent in the way I understand what is meant by rent.  But others might disagree.

I have the response from the TS re my application for permission to appeal to the UT. Duty Judge has refused permission to appeal on the grounds no error of law and S of R adaquate. I still can’t decide if it is worth completing UT1. I don’t want to give my client false hope. Time limit 30/06/2011. Can anyone give me any further guidance….....please!

Thank you for your support. I will take a bit more time in going over the regulations before I complete the UT1.