R v Chesterfield Borough Council, ex parte Fullwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1993 |
| Date | 09 June 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Balcombe, Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Hoffmann
Social security - housing benefit - non-dependant deduction - "jointly occupies"
The words "jointly occupies" in regulation 3(2)(d) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations (SI 1987 No 1971) referred to occupation under legal rights enjoyed jointly with one or more persons and did not include persons who merely resided together.
A man whose two adult sons normally resided with him but who were not liable for any payments to the landlord nor paid him any contribution was liable to a non-dependant deduction from his housing benefit.
The Court of Appeal so held dismissing an appeal by Arthur Leslie Fullwood from the dismissal by Mr Justice Henry (The Times October 9, 1992) of his application for judicial review of Chesterfield Borough Council's decision to deduct part of his housing benefit because of his sons' residence with him.
Regulation 3 of the 1987 Regulations provides: "(1) In these regulations, `non-dependant' means any person, except someone to whom paragraph (2) applies, who normally resides with a claimant.
"(2) This paragraph applies to (a) any member of the claimant's family; … (d) … a person who jointly occupies the claimant's dwelling…"
Lord Campbell of Alloway QC and Miss Nan Alban-Lloyd for the appellant; Mr John Howell, QC, for Chesterfield Borough Council and the Department of Social Security.
LORD JUSTICE HOFFMANN said the key concept in entitlement to housing benefit was being liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling which the claimant occupied as his home. There had to be occupation of the dwelling as a home and liability to make payments in respect of it.
But most dwellings did not house only the person liable to pay for the rent. There might be wives or partners, children, friends and relations, lodgers or paying guests.
The law had to discriminate between those categories of occupations, giving the benefit of the state subsidy to those whom the claimant ought to accommodate but not allowing it to be exploited by those who could afford to pay for themselves.
The sons, who were over 16, were not members of the claimant's family for the purposes of the regulations. The claimant maintained that they jointly occupied the dwelling.
It was clear to his Lordship that "jointly occupies" had to mean something narrower that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another
...Adjudication Officer v Foster [1993] AC 754; [1993] 2 WLR 292; [1993] 1 All ER 705. R v Chesterfield Borough Council, ex parte Fullwood[1994] 2 FCR 158. Stephen Richards and Richard McManus for the Chief Adjudication Officer and the Secretary of State. David Pannick, QC and Bethan Harris fo......
-
Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another
...Officer and Another v Foster [1993] AC 754; [1993] 2 WLR 292; [1993] 1 All ER 705. R v Chesterfield Borough Council, ex parte Fullwood[1994] 2 FCR 158, sub nom Fullwood v Chesterfield Borough Council (1993) 92 LGR AppealAppeal from Mr Commissioner Sanders. David Pannick, QC and Bethan Harri......
- R v Edward Owen Browning
- R v Abdul Rasheed