Bedroom tax - room for overnight carer

The HB Amendment Regulations 2012 state that a claimant is entitled to “one additional bedroom in any case where the claimant or the claimant’s partner is a person who requires overnight care (or in any case where each of them is” .

However, it seems that some LAs, including ours, are asking for evidence that the claimant actually regularly receives overnight care as well as requiring it. The DWP guidance also seems to state that a room is allocated for a carer who actually stays, rather than if the care is needed.

It seems that the Regs just state that the care needs to be required, so evidence that it is required should be enough to entitle the person to an extra room - whether or not they actually have a carer who stays regularly.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this - have I missed something?

Thank you,
Josh

Thank you,
Josh

Is it at all possible to interpret the HB regs differently regarding the requirement for the overnight care (from a non resident) to actually be in place?

HB reg B13(6)(a)

  (6) The claimant is entitled to one additional bedroom in any case where—
  (a) the claimant or the claimant’s partner is (or each of them is) a ‘person who requires overnight care’; 

The term “person who requires overnight care” is then defined by HB reg 2 as

  “person who requires overnight care” means a person (“P”)—     
      (a)  who—   
          (i)  is in receipt of attendance allowance;   
          (ii)  is in receipt of the care component of disability living allowance at the highest or
middle rate prescribed in accordance with section 72(3) of the Act; [ ]   
          (iia)  is in receipt of the daily living component of personal independence payment in accordance with section 78 of the 2012 Act; 
          (iib)  is in receipt of armed forces independence payment; or            
(iii)  although not satisfying either paragraph (i), (ii), (iia) or (iib) above has provided the relevant authority with such certificates, documents, information or evidence as are sufficient to satisfy the authority that P requires overnight care; AND  
     
(b)  whom the relevant authority is satisfied reasonably requires, and has in fact arranged, that one or more people who do not occupy as their home the dwelling to which the claim or award for housing benefit relates should—   
          (i)  be engaged in providing overnight care for P;   
          (ii)  regularly stay overnight at the dwelling for that purpose; and  
          (iii)  be provided with the use of a bedroom in that dwelling additional to those used by the persons who occupy the dwelling as their home, 

I take it that it is not possible to argue that the ‘AND’ above only applies to people under sub para (a)(iii) i.e only to people who are not on AA/DLA/PIP. (so that people in sub para’s (a) (i) & (ii)(iia) i.e. people on DLA/AA/PIP would not have to meet the terms of para (b) and not actually have care in place.)

It is a good question but I would say not, because the two scenarios are contained within para a, and then all of that para is made conditional on para b being met as well. That’s how I read the layout of the paragraphs anyway.  It could of course be really sloppy drafting (perish the thought!)

Afraid not, to acheive what you are suggesting the para would need to be (a) (iii) (aa), not (b) as is.

I agree, the whole of (a) and the whole of (b) are a pair joined by the word “AND” - there is no way you could read the whole of (b) as being subordinate to (a)(iii)