Tribunal orders Walsall Council to raise LHA pay to disabled woman
Benefit regulations ‘discriminatory’
Share
Regulations controlling the local housing allowance discriminate against severely disabled people, a benefits tribunal has found.
The tribunal found that regulations controlling the size of property that can be paid for by LHA, discriminate against people who need an extra bedroom for a live-in carer. The LHA was introduced in 2008.
The mother of a severely disabled woman who needed 24-hour care, and did not want to be named, brought the case after Walsall Council refused to pay enough LHA to cover the rent on her two-bedroom property.
The council said it would only pay enough LHA to cover a one-bedroom home, even though the woman needed a second bedroom for her team of six carers who sleep in it on a rota. The decision left her with a £70 to £75 a week shortfall on her rent. The council have made this up with discretionary housing payments but these are reviewed every 12 weeks and could end at any time.
The tribunal found the regulations contravened the European Convention on Human Rights because it ‘discriminates against her as a severely disabled person in need of constant care and supervision’.
At the tribunal hearing on 10 September, the judge said Walsall Council must pay her the two-bedroom rate, which covers her rent.
However, the decision only applies in this case and does not set a precedent because it was made at the lower tribunal - formerly the social security appeals tribunal. Only decisions made by the upper tribunal - previously the social security commissioners - can set a precedent.
Walsall Council said it would appeal the decision once it has received the statement of reasons, which is similar to a court judge’s summary and explains the tribunal’s decision. Any appeal would be heard by the upper tribunal and would then set a national precedent.
Jan Jesson, equality and discrimination caseworker at Saltley and Nechells Law Centre, who represented the woman, said the case was far from over if Walsall appeals.
The woman’s mother added that she wanted the House of Commons’ work and pensions select committee’s investigation into LHA to address the problems the regulations have caused disabled people.
Timeline
LHA in action
April 2008
Local Housing Allowance introduced
July 2008
Law Lords agree that a private Sheffield tenant’s benefit had been unfairly calculated under the new regime
April 2009
52 per cent of respondents to a National Landlords’ Association survey say the system made them less likely to let to benefit claimants
September 2009
Benefits tribunal finds some LHA rules discriminate against disabled people
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (7)
Melvin Bone | 20/11/2009 10:09 am
The sooner a decision is made on this at an Upper Tribunal the better.
Then the DWP can update the regulations.
I personally think any costs as a result of a carer should probably be met from social services budget rather than a housing budget.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 20/11/2009 11:27 am
Melvin, if the (housing) costs of the carers are met from HB then its a de facto right and will be paid. If it is met from SSD budgets it may not be paid because of competing demands from that local government budget.
So to better guarantee the money and after all its the housing cost of the carer and not the care cost then it should be met from HB
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 20/11/2009 12:01 pm
If there is only one carer and they live in (ie use it as their home) then the HB is paid under current regulations.
The problem only arises with multiple carers.
The DWP are notorious at being slow in sorting out anomolies within the regulations.
To be fair there would not be many claimants who need 24 hour rolling care. I see further problems arising when care is for less than 24 hours 7 days a week.
Where would you draw the line? Only pay out for 24 hour 7 day a week care claims? Denying someone who needed care but only for 5 days a week?
It is a minefield. DHP may be the best option in cases like these.
An upper tribunal will decide...eventually.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 20/11/2009 2:08 pm
Melvin I thought the cost of the carer came out SS budget but in this case I presume the LHA did not accept that the person concerned should live in two bedroom property?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Walsh | 21/11/2009 10:16 pm
if it helps, there has been a successful case in the Upper Tribunals against Birmingham City Council. I believe the appeal number is CH/4018/2007. Sorry, I don't know how to link to that decision here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 23/11/2009 8:34 am
'Peter | Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:08 GMT
Melvin I thought the cost of the carer came out SS budget but in this case I presume the LHA did not accept that the person concerned should live in two bedroom property?'
The cost of the carer does come out of the SS budget but the rent for the extra room does not and currently the claimant must pay the difference unless the carer actually lives full time with the claimant.
I would be careful CH/4018/2007. The legislation referred to is before LHA. It contains references to the 1987 regulations. It referred to a decision made before 6th March 2006. Before LHA .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carolyne | 10/12/2009 12:09 pm
I am facing a similar problem and trying to find a way whereby housing benefit will accept a scheme as supported living which it is but is owned by a private landlord. The support is a concierge service and 24 hours for people with LD. I have tried to find a managing agent but as the landlord is going down the registration route no one will take it on for a short time period.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment