Section: Housing Benefit & Council Tax
New Regulations
Source: Office of Public Sector Information
The Housing Benefit (Daily Liability Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 2007 SI 294
Coming into force: 1 April 2007These Regulations amend the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (2006/213) and the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006 (2006/214).
Regulation 2 amends the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, to provide that persons who have a daily rent liability and reside in certain types of accommodation may be entitled to Housing Benefit from the first day of occupation, rather than the Monday following the date the claim is received.
An amendment is also made to provide that in circumstances where rent is payable on a daily basis, the effective date of the change of circumstances ending entitlement will be the day the change happened, rather than the end of the benefit week.
Regulation 3 makes equivalent provisions in relation to the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006.
The Rent Repayment Orders (Supplementary Provisions) (England) Regulations 2007 SI 572
Coming into force: 6 April 2007These Regulations, which apply in relation to England only, supplement the provisions of sections 73, 74, 96 and 97 of the Housing Act 2004 ("the Act"). Those sections deal with the consequences of operating unlicensed houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), or certain other unlicensed houses. In particular, they deal with the making of rent repayment orders (RROs) by a residential property tribunal on the application of a local housing authority.
RROs cannot be made unless the tribunal is satisfied as to a number of matters. The matter that is relevant for the purposes of these Regulations is that Housing Benefit has been paid by virtue of a scheme under section 123 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4) in respect of periodical payments connected with the occupation of a part or parts of the HMO (section 73(6)(b) of the Act), or the whole or any part or parts of the house (section 96(6)(b) of the Act), during a period during which it appears to the tribunal that an offence under section 72(1) of the Act (for HMOs) or section 95(1) of the Act (for other houses) was being committed.
Where the tribunal is satisfied that a person has been convicted of an offence under section 72(1) or 95(1) of the Act and that Housing Benefit was paid as mentioned in the previous paragraph, section 74(2) of the Act (for HMOs) and section 97(2) of the Act (for other houses) requires the tribunal to make a RRO.
The Order must require the person who, at the time that the Housing Benefit was paid, was entitled to receive the periodical payments in respect of which the Housing Benefit was paid to pay to the local housing authority an amount equal to the total amount of Housing Benefit paid during the period during, which it appears to the tribunal that an offence under section 72(1) of the Act (for HMOs) or section 95(1) of the Act (for other houses) was being committed.
Regulation 2 permits a local housing authority that has made an application for a RRO to seek leave from the tribunal to amend its application where it believes that there has been an overpayment of Housing Benefit, so that the application is in respect of the amount of Housing Benefit that the local housing authority believes is properly payable under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 or the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006. Paragraph (3) of reg 2 defines "properly payable."
Regulation 3 specifies the purposes for which monies received by a local housing authority under a RRO may be applied. There is an exception relating to costs and expenses which are the subject of an order of a court or residential property tribunal.
Regulation 4 requires a local housing authority to pay into the Consolidated Fund amounts received under a RRO that are not applied for a purpose specified in regulation 3.
The Council Tax (Discount Disregards) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2007 SI 580 (W.52)
Coming into force (in Wales only): 1 April 2007Under Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the amount payable for Council Tax is reduced where a person resident in a dwelling falls to be disregarded for the purpose of discount.
Schedule 1 to the 1992 Act provides for classes of persons to qualify for the purpose of discount. The Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 makes further provision in relation to certain of those classes.
Article 3 of this Order amends Parts I and II of Schedule 1 to the 1992 Order in respect of apprentices and students.
Article 4 amends Part I of Schedule 2 to that Order in respect of establishments for students.
Council Tax (Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2007 SI 581 (W. 53)
Coming into force (in Wales only): 1 April 2007The Council Tax (Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) Regulations 1992 provide for the conditions to be fulfilled where a care worker is to be disregarded for the purposes of a discount, which has the effect of reducing the amount of Council Tax payable in respect of a dwelling in which the care worker is resident.
One of those conditions is that the care worker is paid no more than a specified weekly amount. Regulation 2 of these Regulations raises this amount from £36 to £44.
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2007 SI 582 (W.54)
Coming into force (in Wales only): 1 April 2007These Regulations further amend the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992.
Regulation 2 of these Regulations introduces revised tables of deductions from weekly, monthly and daily earnings relating to attachment of earnings orders made pursuant to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
Two Reports Criticise Council
Brent Council's Revenues and Benefits Department was criticised in two reports by the Local Government Ombudsman for mishandling debt recovery. In one report, Ombudsman Tony Redmond found fault by the Council for failing to consider its Anti-Poverty Strategy when seeking recovery of underpaid Council Tax from a man after it had wrongly granted him a 50% empty property discount. In the other, he criticised the Council for taking recovery action against a woman for a Council Tax debt she did not owe.
Report 1
The Council wrongly awarded a 50% empty property Council Tax discount to Mr H while he was still living in his home. It discovered its error in April 2004 and issued Mr H with a retrospective bill. He was unable to meet the proposed arrangements for payment, and the Council took recovery action against him. The Ombudsman found fault because the Council:
- wrongly awarded Mr H the discount in the first place;
- failed to consider its own policy when proposing recovery arrangements;
- failed to enquire into his means after he accepted responsibility for making repayments; and
- failed to take his complaint to the next stage in response to his solicitor's letter.
The Ombudsman did not recommend payment of financial compensation, as the Council had already written off Council Tax arrears. But he considered that there was public interest in the Council's approach to debt recovery, particularly as it related to vulnerable people, and decided to issue the report.
Report 2
In the second case, Ms B claimed Housing and Council Tax Benefits and had a number of changes in her circumstances. The Council delayed in assessing her underlying entitlement to Benefit for the period 4 August 2003 to 1 February 2004. As a result, Ms B's account showed Council Tax arrears that she did not owe.
The Council referred the matter to bailiffs, and their approaches caused Ms B worry and distress. She had to ask for help from two advice agencies.
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council let him know the outcome of its Anti-Poverty Strategy review and pay £500 compensation to Ms B.
Local Government Ombudsman Reports 05/A/17099 and 05/A/18870
Case Law Update
Chichester Council had first suspended and then terminated payment of Housing Benefit to the claimant tenant, who had appealed against those decisions.
She sought Judicial Review of the Council's decision to refuse to pay Benefit pending her appeal. She claimed that the refusal of Benefit had led to her being evicted in breach of her Article 8 right to respect for her home.
Her claim was dismissed. The Housing Benefit Regulations allowed a council to revise its decisions but not to both uphold them and pay benefit pending appeal. There had been no interference with Article 8 rights.
R (Hall) v Chichester DC [2007] All ER (D) 119 (Jan), 19 January 2007
The claimant was entitled to Housing Benefit, and Brighton & Hove Council wished to issue payment of it by crossed cheque. The claimant did not have a bank account and did not want to open one, and sought Judicial Review of the Council's decision.
The claim was dismissed on the following grounds:
The Council had made an arrangement with a local bank to enable claimants to open accounts. It had not unreasonably exercised its discretion under Housing Benefit Regulation 91.
The claimant had no reasonable explanation for not opening a bank account.
The Housing Benefit Guidance Manual contained a typographical error and should read "However, you should [not] send crossed cheques to claimants without a bank account." The council had been wrong to apply the original printed wording but the error did not require the decision to be quashed.
R(Spiropoulus) v Brighton & Hove CC [2007] All ER (D) 75 (Feb), 6 February 2007
© Copyright 1996 - 2008 UK Housing Ltd. Housing Monthly Diary
Issue: March 2007 Reporting on Jan-Feb 2007
- Antisocial Behaviour & Nuisance
- Heating & Energy Efficiency
- Homelessness & Asylum Seekers
- Housing & Estate Management
- Housing Benefit & Council Tax
- Housing Provision
- Private Sector
- Repairs & Improvements
- Right to Buy
- Social Landlords
- Travellers and Gypsies
Quick Links
Welcome to the Legal Update
