Interesting reviewed UT decision on capacity and liability

From http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk

Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2012) UKUT 12 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 5

The UT judge reviewed his previous decision because he had overlooked a legislative provision which could have had a material effect on the decision: in this case MCA 2005 s7, which provides that ‘If necessary goods or services are supplied to a person who lacks capacity to contract for the supply, he must pay a reasonable price for them.’ (1) Although the purported tenancy agreement between P and her father was void because the lack of capacity was known, under s7 P was still ‘liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling which she occupies as her home’ so she was entitled to benefits under the Housing Benefits Regulations 2006. (2) Even if ‘services’ in s7 is not wide enough to cover the provision of accommodation, the common law rules as to necessaries survive and the provision of accommodation is an obvious necessary.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2012/12.html

The judge also slams the LAs for unnecessary appeals and for arguing between themselves about whose budget was liable as she would have had to have free accommodation anyway.