Rayne v Crawley Borough Council and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Tomlinson |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 1620 |
| Docket Number | C3/2014/0763 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 11 November 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 1620
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Tomlinson
C3/2014/0763
The Applicant appeared in Person
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal in respect of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) given on 22 October 2013. That decision in turn upheld a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Housing Benefit Council Tax Benefit Chamber, delivered on 27 June 2012. This is, therefore, an application for permission to bring a second appeal.
The only question which arose before the Tribunals and which potentially arises on appeal is whether or not the Applicant, Mr Rayne, satisfied the relevant provisions of paragraph 13D(2)(b)(ii), regulation 132B(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. Those regulations provide or give an indication as to the circumstances in which a local housing allowance shall be payable.
The relevant benefit which is here relevant is that dealt with in the paragraph to which I have just described, which is applicable where the category of dwelling under consideration is one in respect of which the Claimant (together with his partner where he has one) has the exclusive use of two or more rooms, or — and then this is sub-section (2) — the Claimant (together with his partner where he has one) has the exclusive use of one room, a bathroom and toilet and a kitchen or facilities for cooking.
At the relevant time, which, as I understand it, was between November 2011 and February 2012, the Applicant was in accommodation known as Barrington Lodge. At that accommodation, he had a self-contained lockable private room with an en suite bathroom. The question is whether he also had the exclusive use of a kitchen or facilities for cooking. It is not in dispute that he did not have a kitchen. The question is whether he had the exclusive use of facilities for cooking.
The judge in the First-tier Tribunal described the equipment which Mr Rayne provided for himself in his room at paragraph 7 of her reasons where she says:
"Mr Rayne had a plug in one pot Breville cooker, cutlery, plates and a kettle in his room. He kept his food on the windowsills and mainly relied on recently purchased produce. The room had shelves, drawers and a table beside the bed and a desk which provided surfaces on which he could prepare food. He washed his crockery and utensils in the bathroom basin."
Then when it came to the point of her decision at paragraph 13, Judge Shepherd in the First-tier Tribunal said this:
"13. I do not accept that storing food on the windowsill, preparing food on a bedside table or a desk and using a plug in Breville cooker supplied by Mr Rayne and not by the landlord amount to cooking facilities as envisaged by regulation 13D.
"14. In my view, facilities for cooking should amount to more than a bathroom sink and an electric socket. I find that for the one room self-contained rate to apply, there would need to be a dedicated area for the preparation and cooking of food and some rudimentary cooking equipment provided by the landlord. In this case, there is not."
Mr Rayne, who has made this application himself and has argued it with great skill and lucidity, gave a little further information as to the manner in which he prepared food and did washing up and so forth. He told me that, for the most part, he used plastic utensils. That accords with a submission made by Surrey Law Centre on his behalf, which is reflected in the decision of the Upper Tribunal Judge at paragraph 7. That submission read that the Claimant:
"resided within easy walking distance of the local shops and relied upon his multi-cooker to make his meals. He bought ready chopped vegetables, easily prepared soup, pasta and rice dishes, used plastic cutlery and would dispose of the same after eating. He cooked his meals fresh every day and, if necessary, could store items on the window ledge."
Mr Rayne reminds me that he was there during the period of November to February where he had less need of a refrigerator, which he did not have.
The only other relevant piece of material is that there is a Department of Work and Pensions guidance manual which, in its April 2011 version, says in relation to this particular regulation:
"Facilities for cooking should normally include facilities for the storing of food, facilities for food preparation such as washing and chopping, a means of heating and facilities for washing up dishes, et cetera."
Mr Rayne rightly points to the fact that that guidance does not purport to be prescriptive and merely indicates what facilities for cooking should normally include.
The judge in the Upper Tribunal, when it came to the point of decision, said this:
"23. In my judgment, regulation 132B(2) requires the Claimant to have the exclusive use of one room, bathroom and toilet and either a kitchen or facilities for cooking akin to those found in a kitchen. The facilities which one would normally be expected to find in a kitchen for cooking food or which one would expect to find where the facilities are akin to those found in a kitchen would typically include facilities for...
To continue reading
Request your trial