E v Dacorum Borough Council and M (HB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Mitchell |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 93 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Housing,council tax benefits,council tax benefits - other,Mitchell,E |
| Date | 14 February 2017 |
| Published date | 08 March 2017 |
E v Dacorum Borough Council & M
[2017] UKUT 0093 (AAC)
CH/1394/2015 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. CH/1394/2015
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: E Mitchell, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Decision: The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (16 December 2014, Oxford, file
reference SC 028/14/01086) involved the making of an error on a point of law. It is SET
ASIDE under section 12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Upper
Tribunal RE-MAKES the First-tier Tribunal’s decision as follows:
(1) Ms E’s appeal against the local authority’s decision of 26 September 2014 is allowed.
(2) The local authority’s decision is replaced with the following decision.
(3) Under regulation 96(1)(c) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, £101.16 of the
housing benefit awarded to Ms E in September 2014 is payable to her former landlord
Mr M. The remaining £764.22 is payable to Ms E.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In 2014 Ms E was awarded housing benefit for a property from which she was evicted some
three years previously. Her local authority decided Ms E owed arrears of rent to her former
landlord and so paid the award to him. These proceedings involve Ms E’s challenge to that
decision.
2. Ms E and her former landlord had agreed that, due to her rent arrears, he would retain her
tenancy deposit. The authority decided that this could not be taken into account in determining
her outstanding rent. I decide this was wrong and that the landlord’s retention of Ms E’s
deposit reduced her outstanding rent for the purposes of regulation 96 of the Housing Benefit
Regulations 2006 (which permits housing benefit to be paid to a former landlord where there is
“outstanding rent”).
Background
3. In 2010 Mr M granted Ms E an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling in Hemel
Hempstead. The undated front page of the tenancy agreement was supplied to the First-tier
Tribunal. It indicated that the tenancy began on 19 December 2010 and the monthly rent was
£925. On the commencement of the tenancy, Ms E paid Mr M a deposit of £1,200 and three
months’ rent in advance.
To continue reading
Request your trial