Section: Housing Benefit

Agreement Not on Commercial Basis

Members of the Jesus Fellowship Church submitted claims for Housing Benefit to South Northants District Council. The members lived communally in church property. Each one of them had formal occupation agreements for their accommodation.

The Council decided that, for the purposes of the Housing Benefit Regulations, the agreements were not constructed on a commercial basis. Benefit was refused and that decision was upheld by a local tribunal and then by a Social Security Commissioner.

The Jesus Fellowship Church members argued that the decisions did not take account of their human rights and the extent to which the accommodation arrangements reflected their religious beliefs.

The Court of Appeal rejected a further appeal and ruled that:

Whether or not an agreement is on a commercial basis is a question of fact.
The reasons for entering into an agreement, including religious ones, could not change it from non-commercial to commercial.
The Council's decision had not infringed any rights protected by the Human Rights Act.

Campbell v South Northants DC

Landlord's Details Not Required

The Ombudsman found that Manchester City Council was wrong to delay Housing Benefit payments because it did not have the full information about two claimants' landlord. The claimants were unable to produce the name and address of their landlord because an agent let the properties. They had given the Council the details of the agent and advised that they were unable to get the details of the owners.

The Council operated a practice of not paying claims for Housing Benefit unless the full details of the landlord were provided. The practice was aimed at preventing fraud. As a consequence, both claimants entered into debt and one had to leave his home.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Council did not need any additional information to determine the claims in accordance with current guidance and Housing Benefit Regulations. Further, the Ombudsman noted that the Department for Work and Pensions had written to the Council and advised that the practice was unlawful.

The Ombudsman recommended that:

both claimants be compensated; and
that the one outstanding claim be determined without further delay.

Report Nos. 02/C/15217 & 03/C/11787

Delay Turned Complaint into a Saga

An Ombudsman report found that delays by Ealing LBC turned a simple complaint into a complex saga. The Ombudsman decided that the Council took too long to deal with a claim for Housing Benefit, which led the claimant to instruct a solicitor to act on her behalf.

After the claim had been dealt with, the solicitor wrote to the Council about the severe delay in dealing with the complaint and the failure to treat it according to the published complaints procedures.

The Ombudsman concluded that there had been delay in dealing with the claim, but the delay in dealing with the subsequent complaint was more serious. The Council agreed to offer compensation.

Report No. 03/A/09173

New Regulations

The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 SI 1141

Section: Housing Benefit

Agreement Not on Commercial Basis

Landlord's Details Not Required

Delay Turned Complaint into a Saga

New Regulations

Legal Update

Reporting on April-June 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods