Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Benefits for older people  →  Thread

Non-residential holiday park home and SDP with PC

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 349

Joined: 9 February 2012

Client lives 51 weeks of the year in a holiday home on a non-residential site. She is not allowed to live there full time and must have a “registered address” (not sure what the registered bit means) elsewhere. She uses her daughter’s address for this.

PS are refusing to pay the severe disability addition with her PC stating that she lives with her daughter who is a non-dependant. On the facts she clearly does not live with her daughter.

Has anyone come across this and managed to get the SD addition with PC?

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 369

Joined: 20 September 2018

We have a lot of sites like this around here - to avoid being protected sites they tell people they have to have a home elsewhere and that they can’t live on site all year round. I think the language of “registered” home is just a way of saying that the (“non”) resident is acknowledging that they don’t have any rights and the site is unprotected. So the daughter’s home is really only relevant to the site owners; not to benefits.

The problem is often compounded by the site owner insisting that occupants do not use the park address for any correspondence (and because it’s not a protected site, you definitely don’t want to be upsetting the site owner). But the DWP should be able to deal with having separate addresses for residence and correspondence.

As you say, she is factually resident in her park home for 51 weeks of the year. The question for PC is whether she is “normally residing” with her daughter - not whether she has to use her daughter’s address for correspondence because the park home says so. I haven’t had to deal with your client’s specific problem, but I would hope the answer is to make sure DWP are clear on the facts, and the reason for using a different correspondence address.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2156

Joined: 14 July 2014

I don’t think its problematic from a benefits point of view, its just that everything else about this situation is a can of worms.

If she is living on the site as her main residence, this will put her in breach of the license with the site owner. It may put the site owner in a regulatory mess if it comes to the attention of the council. Beyond that, she has presumably not been paying council tax on the caravan on the basis that it is not her main residence and that is something which I suspect would need to be revisited if it became known by the council that she was putting it forward as her main residence elsewhere.

I would think that if she wants to be assessed for benefit purposes on the basis that she is living in the property but wants to maintain the pretence that she is not for other purposes, there is scope for this to create problems.

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 369

Joined: 20 September 2018

Elliot Kent - 02 July 2021 11:29 AM

I don’t think its problematic from a benefits point of view, its just that everything else about this situation is a can of worms.

If she is living on the site as her main residence, this will put her in breach of the license with the site owner. It may put the site owner in a regulatory mess if it comes to the attention of the council. Beyond that, she has presumably not been paying council tax on the caravan on the basis that it is not her main residence and that is something which I suspect would need to be revisited if it became known by the council that she was putting it forward as her main residence elsewhere.

I would think that if she wants to be assessed for benefit purposes on the basis that she is living in the property but wants to maintain the pretence that she is not for other purposes, there is scope for this to create problems.

I knew I was missing something. Yes, council tax can be a messy problem. Obviously it would be band A, single person discount, and full CTR, but the site owner will not be happy.

I think the reality of people living in these situations for 51 weeks a year (certainly in this area, anyway) is that the site owners are fully aware of it, and only insist on a period away and an address somewhere else so that they can prove that they are an unprotected site. But that doesn’t really help the people who live there.

 

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 349

Joined: 9 February 2012

Thanks both. It rather looks as though she might have to do without the severe disability addition given the risks. She would get a full C Tax reduction if she has to pay it but from what you say, the site owner would be very unhappy if she registers for C Tax there.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2487

Joined: 7 January 2016

We’ve dealt with a number of enquiries from people living like this and they usually end up in a complete mess. It’s really not a good idea to try and bend the rules here.

You might want to flag our Park homes factsheet to your client and in particular the section “Important - living full time without permission” on p.4

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 349

Joined: 9 February 2012

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 02 July 2021 04:30 PM

We’ve dealt with a number of enquiries from people living like this and they usually end up in a complete mess. It’s really not a good idea to try and bend the rules here.

You might want to flag our Park homes factsheet to your client and in particular the section “Important - living full time without permission” on p.4

That’s great and very helpful, thanks Paul. It’s the first time I’ve come across it, which is a bit odd given there are so many parks in Northumberland.

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 413

Joined: 17 June 2010

I don’t think she should miss out

Have a look at JP v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2018] UKUT 75 (AAC)

You could also look at CSIS/100/1993,  CIS/14850/1996, and CH/3935/2007, all of which should provide you with ammunition. (For what its worth I represented in CH/3937/2007.)

There are some similarities here with old “narrow boat” cases CH/0318/2005 and CH/4250/2006 and its worth noting what Mr Commissioner( as he then was) Levenson held at paragraph 8 of CH/4250/2006

“8. In CH/0318/2005 Mr Commissioner Jacobs considered the case of a claimant who lived on a narrow boat with his children, in breach of his licence to occupy the boat. He rejected the argument that a “dwelling” has to have a fixed location. He also rejected submissions that a person could not receive housing benefit while being technically homeless for the purposes of the duty of local authorities to homeless people. He further pointed out that the housing benefit scheme accepts that the claimant’s presence in the accommodation may not be lawful. I agree with all of these conclusions”

I think you would win your case hands down if it goes to Tribunal

[ Edited: 2 Jul 2021 at 05:58 pm by Stainsby ]

File Attachments

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 349

Joined: 9 February 2012

Stainsby - 02 July 2021 04:46 PM

I don’t think she should miss out

Have a look at JP v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2018] UKUT 75 (AAC)

You could also look at CSIS/100/1993,  CIS/14850/1996, and CH/3935/2007, all of which should provide you with ammunition. (For what its worth I represented in CH/3937/2007.)

There are some similarities here with old “narrow boat” cases CH/0318/2005 and CH/4250/2006 and its worth noting what Mr Commissioner( as he then was) Levenson held at paragraph 8 of CH/4250/2006

“8. In CH/0318/2005 Mr Commissioner Jacobs considered the case of a claimant who lived on a narrow boat with his children, in breach of his licence to occupy the boat. He rejected the argument that a “dwelling” has to have a fixed location. He also rejected submissions that a person could not receive housing benefit while being technically homeless for the purposes of the duty of local authorities to homeless people. He further pointed out that the housing benefit scheme accepts that the claimant’s presence in the accommodation may not be lawful. I agree with all of these conclusions”

I think you would win your case hands down if it goes to Tribunal

Thank you for this - interesting. The person in question has decided she does not want to pursue the SDP because of the impact it could have on the site owner; she does not want to jeopardise staying there.