BN v (1) Liverpool City Council (2) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (HB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge West |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 28 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Housing,council tax benefits,council tax benefits - payments that are eligible for HB [regulation 12,Schedule 1],West,M |
| Date | 22 January 2020 |
| Published date | 04 March 2020 |
BN v. (1) Liverpool CC (2) SSWP [2020] UKUT 28 (AAC)
CH/257/2019
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CH/257/2019
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
BEFORE JUDGE WEST
DECISION
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Liverpool dated 13 September 2018 under file
reference SC068/17/06633 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that
decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside.
The decision is remade.
The claimant is entitled to housing benefit to cover the payments by way of service charge on
the property which her late father occupied as his home. The tenancy of the property is a
shared ownership tenancy granted by a housing association and is within the exception in
paragraph 12(2)(a) of the Housing Benefit Regulations to the prohibition on payment of a
rent allowance in respect of periodical payments made under a long tenancy.
The matter is remitted to the Council to calculate the correct amount of housing benefit due to
the claimant.
This decision is made under section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement
Act 2007.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal, with the permission of Judge Jacobs, against the decision of the appeal
tribunal sitting at Liverpool on 13 September 2018.
BN v. (1) Liverpool CC (2) SSWP [2020] UKUT 28 (AAC)
CH/257/2019
2
2. I shall refer to the appellant hereafter as “the claimant”. She is the personal representative
of the estate of her late father, having taken out a grant of letters of administration to his
estate from the Liverpool District Probate Registry in the spring of 2018. The first respondent
is Liverpool City Council. I shall refer to it hereafter as “the Council”. The second respondent
is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I shall refer to her hereafter as “the Secretary
of State”. I shall refer to the tribunal which sat on 13 September 2018 as “the Tribunal”.
3. The claimant appealed against the decision of 25 July 2017 that she was not entitled to
housing benefit to cover the full service charge on the property which her late father occupied
as his dwelling because the tenancy was not a shared ownership tenancy within the definition
in the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”) and that it was therefore not
within the exception in paragraph 12(2)(a) of the Regulations. The decision was reconsidered,
but not revised, on 15 November 2017.
4. The matter finally came before the Tribunal on 13 September 2018. The claimant was
on holiday, but her representative was present and the Tribunal considered that it was in the
interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. The appeal was refused.
The Statement of Reasons
5. The Tribunal held in its statement of reasons that
“1. The Appellant in this case was the personal representative for her
late father who had appealed the decision dated 25 July 2017 by the
local authority that he was not entitled to housing benefit on the basis
that the property in which he owned 75% could not be considered to
be in shared ownership in accordance with the Housing Benefit
Regulations 2006. The appeal in particular related to his eligibility to
housing benefit in respect of the service charges paid on the property.
2. [The Appellant’s father] had sadly died on the 16/1/18 but his
daughter was his personal representative. The hearing was listed for
the 16/9/18. It had been previously adjourned to enable the Appellant
to obtain advice as to whether her late father would qualify for
payment of housing benefit on the basis of shared ownership. The
Appellant had obtained advice and submissions had been put in by the
representative who also attended the oral hearing. The Appellant did
not attend, and it was explained that she was on holiday but the
representative was content to continue as she was the personal
To continue reading
Request your trial