Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council v RH and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Knowles,Judge Jacobs,Judge Hemingway |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 471 (AAC),[2017] UKUT 471 (AAC),[2019] AACR 27 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Housing,council tax benefits,council tax benefits - other,Three Judge Panel |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 18 December 2017 |
NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL V RH AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: CH/1987/2016
[2017] UKUT 471 (AAC)
1
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (made on 8 February 2016 at Coventry
under reference SC015/14/00849) involved the making of an error in point of law,
it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is REMITTED to the tribunal for rehearing
by a differently constituted panel.
DIRECTIONS:
A. The tribunal must undertake a complete reconsideration of the issues that
are raised by the appeal and, subject to the tribunal’s discretion under
paragraph 6(9)(a) of Schedule 7 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social
Security Act 2000, any other issues that merit consideration.
B. The reconsideration must be undertaken in accordance with KK v Secretary
of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKUT 417 (AAC).
C. In particular, the tribunal must investigate and decide how regulation B13
applies on and from 7 April 2014.
D. We shorten the time within which a party may apply for permission to
appeal to the Court of Appeal to one month pursuant to rule 5(3)(a) of the
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI No 2698).
Reasons for Decision
A. The issue
1. This is another case on the meaning of ‘bedroom’ in regulation B13 of the
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI No 213) and the second occasion on which
the Chamber President has directed a three-judge panel on the issue.
2. That deceptively simple word has given rise to literally hundreds of cases
before the Upper Tribunal raising a number of issues. We call the issue in this
case the connection issue. It is this. Is a room in a dwelling classified without
reference to the particular individual or class of individual who may occupy it or
must the room in question be one that can be used as a bedroom by the actual
occupants or class of occupants?
3. This is a distinct issue from the classification issue, which is whether the
room could be used as a bedroom at all. This issue embraces a number of
questions:
The features question: could this room be used a bedroom given its size or
other features?
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
FT v Perth and Kinross Council and Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (HB)
...(There is a further three judge panel decision concerning the meaning of the word bedroom (Nuneaton and Bedworth BC v RH and SSWP [2017] UKUT 471 (AAC)), an appeal from which is to be heard in the Court of Appeal later this year. However, the issue that arises in that case is not directly i......
-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RR (HB)
...determining whether or not a room was a bedroom. This is a controversial issue (see Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council v RH (HB) [2017] UKUT 471 (AAC)) that does not arise in the present case and I shall say no more about The second, expressed at the end of paragraph [21] appears to be l......
-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v WT and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
...occupants or class of occupants” (Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council v RH and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (HB) [2017] UKUT 471 (AAC) at paragraph 2). The Court of Appeal in Hockley, he argued, was not concerned with the “classification issue”, namely whether the room cou......
-
E v Bristol City Council (HB)
...‘ventilation’ is one of the factors identified. 40. Nuneaton & Bedworth BC v RH & the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2017] UKUT 471 (AAC) was also a decision of a three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal. While RH expressed doubts about some of the reasoning in Nelson, it agreed wit......