Overview
1. This Social Security Commissioner’s decision concerns an appeal regarding the definition of “exempt accommodation” for the purposes of housing benefit in the UK.1R(H)7/07: CH/3811/2006 The case specifically examines whether a landlord, Reside Housing Association Limited (“Reside”), provided sufficient “care, support or supervision” to a claimant with mental health problems to qualify the accommodation as “exempt accommodation,” thereby allowing for a higher rate of housing benefit.
2. The Commissioner set aside the Manchester Appeal Tribunal’s decision, finding it erroneous in law, but ultimately dismissed the Claimant’s appeal, concluding that the support provided by Reside was “minimal” and thus did not meet the criteria for “exempt accommodation”.
Key Themes and Most Important Ideas/Facts
Definition of “Exempt Accommodation”
3. Core Definition: Accommodation is considered “exempt accommodation” if it is “provided by a non-metropolitan county council… a housing association, a registered charity or voluntary organisation where that body or a person acting on its behalf also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision” (quoting Reg. 10(6) of the 1995 Regulations, now Para. 4(10) of Schedule 3 to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2006).
4. Significance: If accommodation is “exempt,” the local council cannot restrict the eligible rent for housing benefit based on a rent officer’s determination, unless suitable alternative accommodation is available and it’s reasonable for the claimant to move. This generally allows for a higher housing benefit award.
The Role of the Landlord (Reside Housing Association Limited)
5. Reside is a “not-for-profit social landlord” and a “housing association,” specialising in accommodation for people with learning disabilities, mental health problems, or acquired brain injury.
6. The claimant’s new rent from Reside was significantly higher (£203.94 per week) than her previous “core rent” (£60 per week).
7. The dispute hinged on whether Reside (or someone acting on its behalf) provided “care, support or supervision” to the claimant, making the accommodation “exempt”.
Distinction Between Landlord and Care Provider
8. In this case, a separate entity, Regard Partnership Ltd. (“Regard”), provided the primary “care, support and supervision” to the claimant, contracted by Manchester City Council.
9. The Tribunal initially considered whether Regard provided support “on behalf of” Reside, but this contention was abandoned. The sole issue became whether Reside directly provided the support.
10. Regard’s contractual obligations to the Council included a comprehensive list of “SP eligible support tasks” such as “help in setting up and maintaining home or tenancy,” “developing domestic/life skills,” “help in managing finances and benefit claims,” and “emotional support, counselling and advice”. The total weekly charge for Regard’s services to the claimant was £800.63.
11. An agreement between Reside and Regard stipulated that Regard was responsible for “providing all necessary support services” for tenants, while Reside was responsible for “providing advice and assistance to [Regard] and tenants in relation to welfare benefits”.
Interpretation of “Provides Care, Support or Supervision”
12. Tribunal’s Error: The Appeal Tribunal erroneously read into the regulation a requirement that the landlord be the “main” provider of care, support, or supervision. The Commissioner explicitly states: “In my judgment the Tribunal was wrong in stating that the definition of ‘exempt accommodation’ requires that the landlord be the ‘main’ provider of care, support or supervision. In my judgment it is simply not right to read in any such requirement”.
13. No Statutory/Contractual Obligation Required: The Commissioner rejected the argument that care, support, or supervision must be provided pursuant to a contractual or statutory obligation from the landlord.
14. “More Than Minimal” Requirement: Crucially, the Commissioner affirmed that the support provided by the landlord must be “more than minimal”. This is based on the general principle of statutory construction, de minimis non curat lex (“the law does not concern itself with trifling matters”). The Commissioner stated: “It cannot in my judgment have been intended that that a landlord can bring itself within the definition by providing a token or minimal amount of care, support or supervision”.
Assessment of Reside’s Support (via Mr. Christie, Tenant Liaison Officer)
15. Limited Capacity: Mr. Christie was the sole Tenant Liaison Officer for Reside, managing over 200 tenants across 50 properties spread throughout England and Wales. His duties included providing a “responsive support service,” monitoring care providers, and conducting planned tenant visits.
16. Time Allocation: Approximately 90% of his time was spent on specific duties that could be construed as support. He aimed to visit properties every six weeks, but often only saw half the tenants. His 37.5 hours per week, when averaged across 214 tenants, equated to about 10 minutes per tenant per week, with actual support time likely “substantially less” due to travel and other duties.
17. Minimal Direct Contact: Evidence of direct contact between Mr. Christie and the claimant was sparse and infrequent (e.g., initial involvement in Sept 2005, a general report in Jan 2006, one specific interaction in April 2006, and knowledge of later incidents without direct involvement).
18. Availability vs. Actual Support: The argument that Mr. Christie’s mere availability (via mobile phone) constituted support was dismissed, especially given the “high level of actual personal support from Regard”. The Commissioner stated that the definition “is primarily a reference to actual support, rather than to the mere availability of it”.
19. Conclusion on Sufficiency: The Commissioner concluded that Mr. Christie’s support was “nothing more than minimal” and “not sufficiently substantial to amount to the provision of ‘support’ for the purposes of the definition of ‘exempt accommodation.'” This was reinforced by the fact that Reside had no contractual or statutory obligation to provide support, and Regard was contractually responsible for comprehensive care.
Outcome
20. Despite setting aside the Tribunal’s decision due to an error in law (requiring the landlord to be the “main” provider), the Commissioner substituted his own decision. Based on a detailed review of the evidence, he found that the support provided by Reside, through its tenant liaison officer, was minimal in extent and did not constitute a “significant element of support” as required by the “exempt accommodation” definition. Therefore, the claimant’s appeal for increased housing benefit was dismissed.
The Reported Decision
21. The reported decision identifies the following points as held in this case:2Reported Decision R(H) 7/07
22. Held, dismissing the appeal, that:
- the tribunal was wrong to read into the definition of exempt accommodation a requirement that the landlord be the main provider of care, support or supervision, since, had any such limitation been intended, it could and would have been made expressly (paragraph 21);
- for the same reason, it was not possible to read into the definition a requirement that the care, support or supervision be provided pursuant to a contractual or statutory obligation on the part of the landlord (paragraph 22);
- in order to satisfy the definition the care, support or supervision which the landlord provided must be more than minimal (Sharratt v London Central Bus Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 718, [2003] 1 WLR 2487, [2003] All ER 590 followed) (paragraph 23);
- on the facts of this case it was not possible to conclude that such support as the tenant liaison officer was able to provide to the claimant was anything more than minimal (paragraph 29).
Notes [ + ]