AB v London Borough of Camden (HB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Mitchell |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 158 (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],Mitchell,J |
| Date | 28 March 2020 |
| Published date | 25 June 2020 |
AB v London Borough of Camden (HB) [2020] UKUT 158 (AAC)
CH/3284/2017 1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Upper Tribunal case No. CH/3284/2017
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Mr E. Mitchell, Judge of the Upper Tribunal.
Hearing: 9 October 2019, Field House, Bream’s Buildings, London.
Attendances:
For the Appellant Mr B: Mr J Bates of counsel, instructed by the National Bargee
Traveller’s Association.
For the Respondent local authority: Mr S Datta of counsel, instructed by the London
Borough of Camden’s Legal Department.
Decision: The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (29 March 2017, Enfield, file reference SC
312/17/00016) involved the making of an error on a point of law. The Upper Tribunal sets
aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007. Under section 12(2)(b)(ii) of that Act, the Upper Tribunal re-makes
the tribunal’s decision as follows:
1. The Appellant Mr B’s appeal against the Respondent local authority’s decision of 1
December 2016 is allowed.
2. The local authority’s decision is set aside. The authority did not have proper grounds
for superseding its decision of 21 September 2016 to award Mr B housing benefit.
3. The decision of 21 September 2016 was not superseded by the purported decision of 1
December 2016.
4. Insofar as Mr B challenged the local authority’s refusal to supersede the decision of 21
September 2016 in his favour, so as to include additional payments within his eligible
rent, his appeal is dismissed. The additional payments in question fell outside the
categories of payments that constitute ‘rent’ under regulation 12(1) of the Housing
Benefit Regulations 2006.
AB v London Borough of Camden (HB) [2020] UKUT 158 (AAC)
REASONS FOR DECISION
The context
1. This decision re-visits the eligibility for housing benefit purposes of payments made by a
person whose home is a houseboat.
2. For certain purposes, houseboats are divided into two usage categories – those with a
permanent mooring and those without. The latter are conventionally referred to as ‘continuous
cruisers’. Use of a houseboat as a continuous cruiser requires a licence, which must be paid
for. In this case, a licence was granted to the Appellant Mr B by the Canal & River Trust. As I
understand it, the Trust owns and manages most (but not all) of the inland waterways of
England and Wales.
3. Existing authority in the form of a Social Security Commissioner’s decision holds that a
payment made in exchange for a continuous cruiser licence is not a payment in respect of a
licence to occupy a dwelling. On that basis, the payment cannot be ‘rent’ under regulation
12(1)(b) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (2006 Regulations). I decide that existing
authority is incorrect and decline to follow the Commissioner’s decision. I decide that Mr B’s
continuous cruiser licence payments were rent for the purposes of regulation 12(1). The
Commissioner’s decision did not take account of the fact that, for housing benefit purposes, a
dwelling in the form of a houseboat is comprised of not only the boat but also the land used
for mooring it. A licence to use land for mooring is therefore a licence to occupy a dwelling. It
does not matter that the houseboat itself is owned by a claimant (or someone other than the
person who owns or manages the mooring land).
4. For some time, the Social Security Commissioner’s decision that payments in respect of a
houseboat licence fell outside regulation 12(1)(b) may not have mattered in practice. This was
because the Commissioner also decided that such payments fell within another ‘rent’ category
namely regulation 12(1)(d) on the basis that they were payments in respect of use and
occupation of a dwelling. On that basis, the payments were eligible to be met by an award of
housing benefit. However, Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs recently decided that such payments
could not fall within regulation 12(1)(d) properly construed. I should point out that I am in full
agreement with Judge Jacobs’ decision.
5. Judge Jacobs’ decision may well have put houseboat dwellers in a difficult position. The
practical result was to eject houseboat licence payments from the housing benefit scheme. It
was therefore appropriate to take the opportunity presented by this case to review earlier
To continue reading
Request your trial