× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Caravans and Pitches

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Client is a disabled man who chooses to live in a caravan as a lifestyle choice, it makes him healthier something to do with being in touch with nature.

He pays rent of £80 for his pitch and £20 for his caravan a week, he was receiving £50 per week and faces a substantial shortfall and arrears.

I only got an appeal decision from the VOA that he is entitled to £30 for the pitch and £20 for the caravan with £10 DHP.

Other people on his site in exactly the same circumstances are obtaining £10-30 more than he is but I feel like I have hit a brick wall. Any advice on how to progress would be greatly appreciated.

Kevin D
forum member

Independent HB/CTB administrator, consultant & trainer (Essex)

Send message

Total Posts: 474

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m assuming that the reference to “VOA” means the Rent Officer.

Barring exceptions (e.g. exempt accommodation), a LA is bound by the RO’s decision**.  On the face of it, it’s difficult to see why other HB claimants have been awarded more HB in similar circumstances and it may be worth asking the LA, informally, why that is.  But, the entitlement of others is irrelevant if your client’s HB is correct.

You can appeal against a DHP.  You never know, the LA *may* say something in its correspondence that suggests discretion has been fettered and/or the decision is irrational.  Either of those shortcomings would be potentially subject to Judicial Review, but that really would be a long shot.

**  A claimant can appeal the the number of occupiers to a normal Tribunal but, if that is correct, there is no right of appeal against the LA’s adoption of a RO decision (para 6(2)(c), Sch 3, CSPSSA 2000)

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Many thanks for the reply.

I thought a more informal approach might be all I had left, I wondered whether it might be useful to argue the point that if he goes into a local authority property it is going to cost them a hell of a lot more.

I also wonder whether there might be an element of discrimination in that they are not allowing him to live his life the way he wishes.

I think the DHP is pretty set and I have no new arguments or evidence to present to them but I can only try informally and hope for a decision made by someone with a soul.

Kevin D
forum member

Independent HB/CTB administrator, consultant & trainer (Essex)

Send message

Total Posts: 474

Joined: 16 June 2010

The fact it may cost the LA more in the event of your client having to move only has relevance to the DHP element because the LA has no choice but to follow the RO - there is no discretion.

I hadn’t thought of a HRA argument.  But, I suspect it would fail on the grounds that there is no gender / employment / race discrimination (directly or indirectly); the effect of a government limiting benefit and the inherent interference with “family life” is not dispropotionate; benefits expenditure as a whole must be limited for the economic well-being of the country and the possibility of of the occasional perverse outcome doesn’t negate the overall position.

Having working in and around HB/CTB for 20+ years, I can’t think of any formal route that can be sensibly pursued in this case - at least not based on the info given so far.

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Forgive my youthful starry-eyed socialism!

Kevin D
forum member

Independent HB/CTB administrator, consultant & trainer (Essex)

Send message

Total Posts: 474

Joined: 16 June 2010

Sorry Ryan, absolutely no offence intended.

I certainly wasn’t taking a political view.  My response was intended to simply call it as I saw it based on the legislation and the legal authorities that spring to mind.  I really can’t see any (formal) way forward at all in this case.  Whether the situation sits well morally is another matter….

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

None taken at all,

I tend to assume that the world can work the way I think it should to the detriment of looking at the actualities of a situation!

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

Would reg 15(1) HB Regs help?  I’ve used it where LRR determinations for very similar properties in the same area have been inconsistent.

This enables the LA to apply at any time for a redetermination (worth them pointing out the huge inconsistency - partic as a positive redetermination might save them some DHP and a homelessness application).

However, there is a risk that the RO determines the rent downwards or even seeks to redetermine all the other rents on the wrong direction.  How likely is another matter.

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Thanks Neil, unfortunately i have already tried that route and there was no movement.

I have also now rang warrington Council who have informed me to send a request to increase DHP by letter but was also told that their budget for this is almost gone so they are only using it in the most pressing and temporary of cases and this case will, in all probability, not meet this standard.

After some discussion around the office we are going to look at a judicial review as the Valuation Office Agency only seem to have looked at the decision of the amount awarded for the pitch and also we believe they failed to attend the actual site itself and had no regard for the fact that other people on the site get more benefits for the same circumstances.

Kevin D
forum member

Independent HB/CTB administrator, consultant & trainer (Essex)

Send message

Total Posts: 474

Joined: 16 June 2010

Ryan Bradshaw - 22 June 2010 01:57 PM

Thanks Neil, unfortunately i have already tried that route and there was no movement.

I have also now rang warrington Council who have informed me to send a request to increase DHP by letter but was also told that their budget for this is almost gone so they are only using it in the most pressing and temporary of cases and this case will, in all probability, not meet this standard.

After some discussion around the office we are going to look at a judicial review as the Valuation Office Agency only seem to have looked at the decision of the amount awarded for the pitch and also we believe they failed to attend the actual site itself and had no regard for the fact that other people on the site get more benefits for the same circumstances.

Previous JRs on RO decisions as follows:

R(oao Dinsdale & others) v Rent Service (2001) EWHC Admin 65 QBD
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/65.html

R(oao Saadat & others) v Rent Service (2001) EWCA Civ 1559 HLR 613
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1559.html

Saadat / Dinsdale is the same case.


R v Rent Service ex parte Cumpsty (2002) EWHC Admin 2526 QBD
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/2526.html

Shepherd v Dundee CC & DCC HBRB & Rent Officer (2002) ScotCS 290
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2002/290.html


Finally, the “Heffernan” saga:

(Round 1:)

R(oao Heffernan) v Rent Service (2006) EWHC Admin 2478
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2478.html

Rent Service v Heffernan (2007) EWCA Civ 544
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/544.html

R(oao Heffernan) v Rent Service (2008) UKHL 58
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/58.html

Following Mr Heffernan’s success, the legislation was changed!  However, in the meantime, that didn’t stop him from commencing “round 2”...:

Heffernan v Rent Service [2009] EWHC Admin 3539
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/3539.html

[ Edited: 23 Jun 2010 at 11:37 am by Kevin D ]
Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Brilliant, thanks very much.

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Update:
I have completed a draft of the JR letter I am going to send out if any of you fancy having a quick look see then send me an email at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Ryan Bradshaw
forum member

Leigh Day, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 17 June 2010

Also FYI:

R v Rent Service ex parte Cumpsty (2002) EWHC Admin 2526 QBD para. 74

Sets out the procedure for challenging decisions made by a rent officer and gives sueful guidance as to their duties.