Housing benefit legislation
Housing benefit legislation
By section 131(1)(a) of the Act, the principal condition of entitlement to housing benefit is that the claimant should be “liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home”.
It is not in dispute that, as between himself and his landlord, the claimant is liable to pay rent for his home or that his home is a “dwelling in Great Britain”.
However section 131(1)(a) is qualified by section 137(2)(i) of the Act, which gives the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions power to make regulations that “[treat] any person who is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling as if he were not so liable”.
In other words, the rules of a housing benefit scheme may treat someone as not being legally liable to pay rent—and therefore not entitled to housing benefit—even though he is so liable under the law of landlord and tenant.
The Secretary of State has used that power to make regulation 56 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations"). Paragraph (1) of the regulation provides that “a full-time student shall be treated as if he were not liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling”.
The phrase “full-time student” is defined by regulation 53(1) as meaning “a person attending or undertaking a full-time course of study and includes a student on a sandwich course”. “Full-time course of study” is also defined by that regulation but, as it is not in dispute that the claimant was attending such a course, I need say nothing further about that definition.
As the claimant was attending a “full-time course of study”, he was a “full-time student” and, on the face of things, the rule in regulation 56(1) therefore excluded from entitlement to housing benefit.
However, that rule is subject to exceptions that are set out in regulation 56(2) under which regulation 56(1) does not apply to full-time students: (Footnote: 2)
who are receiving income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income-related employment and support allowance;
who are receiving universal credit, except where the award of universal credit includes the housing costs element;
who are lone parents;
whose award of HB would—but for regulation 56(1)—include the disability premium or severe disability premium;
- Heading
- Section 1
- I set that decision aside and re-make it as follows
- REASONS
- The facts
- The total claimed overpayment was therefore £7,488.40
- Gravesham’s decisions
- The manuscript worksheet dated 23 January 2018 in the supporting papers states that the student finance figures were
- disregarding the Parents’ Learning Allowance (see paragraph 23 above) under regulation 59(4) of the Regulations
- Digression: Gravesham’s letter of 29 November 2017
- The relevant law
- Housing benefit legislation
- who have been assessed, or treated, as incapable of work for 196 days who have been assessed as, or treated as, having, limited capability for work for 196 days
- who are deaf and in respect of certain specified payments have been awarded from public funds
- The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act
- The Equality Act
- CH/4429/2006
- The Tribunal’s decision
- Permission to appeal and the Secretary of State
- Grounds of Appeal
- The responses
- Hearing
- Discussion
- The interpretation of regulation 64: CH/4429/2006
- deciding whether to accept those terms; and if so completing the form and returning it to the Student Finance Authority
- The interpretation of regulation 64: Gravesham’s submissions
- The interpretation of regulation 64: the Secretary of State’s submissions
- Administrative inconvenience and the floodgates
- Discrimination
- The Upper Tribunal’s decision
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 193 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)