FT v Perth and Kinross Council and Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (HB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Poole |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKUT 43 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Housing,council tax benefits,Human rights law,council tax benefits - other,Human rights law - article 14 (non-discrimination),Poole,AI |
| Date | 30 January 2019 |
| Published date | 09 April 2019 |
FT v Perth and Kinross Council and SSWP (HB) [2019] UKUT 43 (AAC)
1
CSH/793/2014
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No: CSH/793/2014
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
DECISION OF THE JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
The appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal given at Dundee on 29
July 2014 is set aside. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is re-made as
follows:
“The appeal is refused. The decision of Perth and Kinross Council dated 9 April
2013 is confirmed. Perth and Kinross Council were obliged to determine a
maximum rent (social sector) in accordance with Regulations A13 and B13 of
the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 when determining the claimant’s housing
benefit claim. On application of Regulations A13 and B13, the claimant was
under-occupying her property, and from 1 April 2013 her eligible rent for the
purposes of HB fell to be reduced. The claimant’s status as a gypsy traveller and
her particular factual circumstances were taken into account by the Council
appropriately, by the payment by it of discretionary housing payments between 1
April 2013 to 10 September 2015, which mitigated in full the adverse effect of
the application of Regulations A13 and B13 on the claimant’s housing benefit
claim”.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This case concerns the application to gypsy travellers of what “is described as
either the “bedroom tax” or “removal of spare room subsidy” according to
political viewpoint” (R(MA) v SSWP [2016] 1 WLR 4550 (“Carmichael”), per
Lord Toulson at paragraph 2).
2. The appellant (the “claimant”) was born in 1972 and is a member of the
travelling community. For more than 30 years she has lived in Double Dykes
Caravan Site, a long established site for gypsy travellers. At the time with
which this appeal is concerned, the claimant rented a chalet and pitch on this
site from Perth and Kinross Council (the “Council”). The Council was also
responsible for housing benefit (“HB”) and discretionary housing payment
(“DHP”). On 9 April 2013 the claimant was notified of the decision of the
Council to reduce her HB on the basis that she was under-occupying her
property by two bedrooms. She was advised that she could apply for DHP to
make up the shortfall, although did not initially apply. She appealed the
Council’s decision to reduce her HB because the chalet she lived in on
Double Dykes Caravan Site was a mobile home, which she considered
should be exempt, and relied on her rights under the European Convention of
Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Council accepted that the claimant lived in a
mobile home, but submitted that it had correctly applied the Housing Benefit
Regulations 2006 (the “2006 Regulations”).
3. On 29 July 2014 the First-tier Tribunal (the “tribunal”) allowed the appeal in
part, because it found that one of the two bedrooms taken into account by the
To continue reading
Request your trial