[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)

There appears to be no issue with a housing benefit claimant moving from a 4-week disregard to a 26-week disregard for unplanned medical treatment. It is not apparent that the fusion of multiple benefits into one composite benefit justifies a difference in treatment between housing benefit and UC claimants insofar as (the Secretary of State’s case) the former may have their homes protected by continuing benefit during medical treatment abroad whereas the latter may not.

The fact that the mechanism through which housing benefit deals with claimants leaving the country is different is an issue of form rather than substance. Housing benefit achieves through the lens of “occupation of the claimant’s property as the home” what UC does via treating a claimant as in Great Britain.

The Secretary of State notes that housing benefit serves a more limited purpose than other legacy benefits. But that is the same purpose served by the housing costs element of UC. The practical reality is that, unless a claimant is in settled housing provided by a local authority or housing association, the housing costs element is likely constitute the bulk of a claimant’s award (as was the case here).

The Secretary of State largely sought to maintain the status quo. The rules on UC, (if ground 1 fails) do not represent the status quo in relation to housing costs provision. In circumstances where a housing benefit claimant would have his housing costs protected, there is no justification to fail to do so for UC claimants.

The Appellant submits, in accordance with Ground 1, that the 2013 Regulations can and should be read to permit genuine medical treatment which is the sole reason a claimant remains outside Great Britain, provided that there has been no ground for supersession and disallowance. That interpretation does not run against the grain of the legislation.

There is bespoke provision in which entitlement to the housing costs element may continue to run while the claimant is disqualified as a prisoner. It is accepted that to read in an exception would clearly amount to impermissible redrafting.