Housing benefit law update 2013

Transcription

1 12 LegalAction law&practice/social security July/August 2013 Housing benefit law update 2013 This annual series by Bethan Harris and Desmond Rutledge is designed to keep readers up to date with legislation, case-law and other recent developments in housing benefit (HB) law. months. 3 Although the average rate of rent collection was reported to be 94 per cent in the project areas, the change to payments direct to tenants has meant that more tenants have fallen into arrears and rent collection is more resource intensive for landlords. 4 The projects are testing out criteria for when claimants should be switched to payments direct to the landlord. In the UC Pathfinder areas, claimants with over two months arrears will be switched automatically to direct rent payment (see HB circular A13/2013 p16). POLICY AND LEGISLATION The introduction of Universal Credit The phased roll-out of universal credit (UC), the new integrated benefit for people of working age, started on 29 April Where a person qualifies for an award of UC, instead of making a claim for HB in respect of rent, s/he will receive a housing costs element as part of his/her UC (Welfare Reform Act (WRA) 2012 s11 and Universal Credit Regulations (UC Regs) 2013 SI No 376 reg 25 and Sch 1 para 2). The rules on when and how much UC will be paid in respect of rent are in UC Regs regs 25 and 26, and Schedules 1 to 4, which provide a framework similar to the one provided by the Housing Benefit Regulations (HB Regs) 2006 SI No 213, covering the following: when the claimant is to be treated as liable or not liable to make payments; when s/he is to be treated as occupying or not occupying the accommodation; the calculation of the amount of benefit in respect of private rented sector, temporary, and social rented sector accommodation; size criteria; and non-dependent deductions, referred to under UC as housing cost contributions. UC is being introduced initially in the UC Pathfinder areas. From October 2013, the gradual process of introduction of UC nationally will begin, with the migration of existing claimants to UC planned to be completed by the end of Implementation of benefit cap through HB scheme The benefit cap is a cap on the total amount of benefit working-age people can receive, introduced under WRA s96. The benefit cap is one of the features of UC. Alongside the phased introduction of UC, the benefit cap is already being implemented through capping the amount of HB paid to claimants. The roll-out of the benefit cap implemented through the HB scheme started on 15 April 2013 in the London boroughs of Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey. All other local authorities will begin to apply the benefit cap from 15 July 2013, and all households to which the benefit cap applies should be subject to the cap by the end of September 2013 (see Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB) G3/2013 and HB circular A15/2013). 2 In order to introduce the benefit cap, the HB Regs 2006 were amended by the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 SI No 2994, with effect from 15 April 2013, inserting a new Part 8A. The effect was to reduce the amount of HB, where the cap applies, so that the total amount of benefit paid is 350 per week for a single claimant who is not responsible for a child or young person and 500 per week in any other case. Work and Pensions Minister Mark Hoban estimated the loss of benefit in each local authority area in a written answer (Hansard HC Written Answers 13 May 2013, cols 66W 68W). London has the highest percentage of claimants potentially affected by the benefit cap, with over 7,000 households in Greater London estimated to lose 100 or more in benefit per week. A judicial review is being pursued by four families to challenge the benefit cap introduced by the new Part 8A of the HB Regs The claimants argue that the regulations are discriminatory and unreasonable, and that when formulating the policy the secretary of state did not take proper account of the impact of the policy on women, children, people with disabilities, racial and religious minorities and carers. Direct payments demonstration projects The projects aim to enable lessons to be learned that are relevant to the introduction of UC, when housing costs will in general be paid directly to the claimant as an element of UC. This represents a significant change for the social rented sector because, under the current system, all local authority tenants, and the majority of housing association tenants, have their HB paid directly to their landlord. The projects commenced in 2012 in the six project areas, Edinburgh, Oxford, Shropshire, Southwark LBC, Torfaen and Wakefield, and in May 2013 were extended for a further six Restrictions on the uprating of local housing allowance Local housing allowance (LHA) is the method of calculating HB for private sector tenants. Since the 2010 Spending Review, there have been many changes to the scheme to reduce the amount of LHA. 5 These include that, from 1 April 2013, LHA would be uprated in line with the consumer prices index (CPI) rather than local rent inflation: the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations (HB (Amendment) Regs) 2012 SI No 3040 under WRA s69 and the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2012 SI No 646. This change is subject to challenge by judicial review (see below). The government has now gone a step further, with regard to the restriction on the uprating of LHA, by introducing the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013, which will restrict the uprating of LHA to just one per cent for the tax years 2014/15 and 2015/16. The Rent Officers (HB and UC Functions) (Amendment) Order 2013 SI No 1544 implements this change with the effect that LHA rates will be the lower of the rent at the 30th percentile of listed rents or the previous year's LHA increased by one per cent. It is proposed to increase LHA rates by more than one per cent in some areas. 6 The bedroom tax On 1 April 2013, size criteria restricting the number of bedrooms to which a claimant is entitled under the HB scheme were introduced for the first time in the social rented sector. The change is referred to by the government and the media respectively as the removal of the spare room subsidy and the bedroom tax. The change affects tenants of working age in the council sector and other social rented sector. New regulation B13 of the HB Regs 2006 (introduced by the HB (Amendment) Regs 2012 SI No 3040) provides that if the claimant has one bedroom in excess of the number allowed in respect of the household size, 14 per cent of the rent is deducted when calculating the HB to which s/he is entitled, and if the claimant has two or more bedrooms in excess of the number allowed, 25 per cent of the rent is deducted.

2 July/August 2013 LegalAction law&practice/social security 13 Circumstances in which an extra bedroom is allowed The rules allow for an additional bedroom where the claimant or claimant s partner meets the criteria to qualify as a person who requires overnight care (HB Regs 2006 reg B13). There are other limited circumstances where the government has decided that an extra bedroom will be allowed. On 12 March 2013, it issued HB circular HB/CTB Urgent Bulletin U2/2013, stating that local authorities should allow an extra bedroom for children who are unable to share because of their severe disabilities; its appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Burnip v (1) Birmingham City Council (2) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Rebecca Trengrove (as personal representative of the estate of Lucy Trengrove) v (1) Walsall MC (2) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Gorry v (1) Wiltshire Council (2) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Equality and Human Rights Commission (intervener) [2012] EWCA Civ 629, 15 May 2012; November 2012 Legal Action 13 (which concerned the size criteria already in place in relation to LHA) was no longer being pursued, and therefore local authorities were legally bound by the judgment. An extra bedroom is allowed in regulations for two further groups with effect from 1 April 2013: the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regs 2013 SI No 665 and the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendment Order 2013 SI No 666. Adult children who are in the Armed Forces, but who continue to live with parents, are to be treated as continuing to live at home for the purposes of applying the size criteria when deployed on operations, and the non-dependent deduction is removed and only reinstated when they return home. Also, an extra bedroom is allowed where the claimant or his/her partner is an approved foster carer (or a formal kinship carer in Scotland) who has a child placed with them, or for 12 months from the last placement or from the date of the approval as a foster carer. There is Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) guidance on these provisions in HB circular HB/CTB A10/2013. With regard to claimants who, as a result of other circumstances, have a pressing need for an extra room, the HB scheme makes no provision for them other than the possibility of applying for a discretionary housing payment (DHP). A claim for judicial review of the bedroom tax is being pursued by a range of claimants affected by it. The impact of the bedroom tax Many social sector tenants face a shortfall in their weekly HB. Social landlords will be considering how best to support their tenants to think about options such as raising extra income or transferring to a smaller property. 8 A report by the National Housing Federation examined the government s claims that the bedroom tax will tackle overcrowding, encourage more efficient use of social housing and save the taxpayer 465m per year. 9 Its findings include the following: There are not enough smaller social homes available for everyone affected by the bedroom tax to be able to downsize. If those people moved to the private sector, the bill to the taxpayer could increase. If the disabled people affected by the bedroom tax moved, it could cost millions in home adaptations. In the North of England, families affected by the bedroom tax outnumber overcrowded families by three to one. A consortium led by Ipsos MORI will monitor the impact of the social sector size criteria (Hansard HC Written Answers 13 May 2013, col 60W). Discretionary housing payments A revised DHP guidance manual was issued in April It takes account of the fact that DHPs will be available to claimants who receive the housing costs element of UC as a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2013 SI No In addition, the revised manual incorporates good practice for supporting claimants affected by the benefits cap, the bedroom tax and the restrictions on LHA. The amount of money made available for DHPs has been increased dramatically: 155 million is available for 2013/14 (see HB circular HB/CTB S1/2013). There has been a sharp increase in applications for DHPs since the introduction of the bedroom tax. 11 CASE-LAW The references below are to the HB Regs 2006 unless stated otherwise. Moving into a new home (reg 7(8)) Redecoration does not constitute adaptation of a dwelling DM v Lewisham LBC and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (HB) [2013] UKUT 26 (AAC), 16 January 2013 (CH/1140/2011) 12 The claimant ( C ) required kidney dialysis three times a week. He accepted an offer of a new tenancy in more suitable accommodation on 26 October (his previous accommodation was damp), but was unable to move until 8 November because the new flat needed to be cleaned and redecorated to minimise the risk of infection. He was awarded HB in respect of the new accommodation from 9 November, but the period before, when he was liable for two properties, was disallowed. A First-tier Tribunal decided that he did not satisfy HB Regs 2006 reg 7(8)(c)(i), and therefore was not entitled to HB on two homes under regulation 7(6)(e)(i) because, following the decision in R(H) 4/07, which held that redecoration did not involve a sufficient change to the fabric or structure of the dwelling to qualify as adapting it, C appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The judge acknowledged that there was considerable force in the argument that C could not reasonably be expected to live in the accommodation in its state of not having been redecorated for even a short period of time, or while the work was going on, because of the serious risk to his health from life-threatening infections. Nevertheless, after reviewing the case-law, he was not satisfied that R(H) 4/07 was wrongly decided given the inherent uncertainty in the meaning of the phrase adapt the property in the HB Regs He took into account that regulation 7 had been amended a number of times since the decision in R(H) 4/07, but that the conditions in regulation 7(8)(c)(i) had not been amended. The provision was compatible with C s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ( the convention ) as a disabled person, and there was no contravention of article 14 of the convention. Dwelling occupied as the home (reg 7) Night shelter charges OR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Isle of Anglesey CC (HB) [2013] UKUT 65 (AAC), 6 February 2013 (CH/1563/2012) C had stayed in a night shelter for rough sleepers over a period of several months. The shelter was not accessible between 8am and 8pm; it only offered accommodation on a first-come, first-served basis; it provided dormitory accommodation. C could not leave his clothes and personal possessions there during the day. C had no furniture in the shelter which he could regard as having been provided for his exclusive use. It had limited communal kitchen, WC and washing facilities, and showers which were in another building onequarter of a mile away. C was refused HB for the night shelter charges on the ground that the shelter was not a dwelling occupied as his home. A First-tier Tribunal upheld that decision, on the basis that C was not occupying the shelter as his home because it was not one dwelling (as the showers were elsewhere) and he had no security of tenure. C appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

3 14 LegalAction law&practice/social security July/August 2013 The Upper Tribunal set aside the tribunal s decision, but substituted its own to the same effect. The tribunal held that the fact that the showers were located in a different building was not in itself a deciding factor. The deciding factors were the very transient and uncertain nature of C s occupation and his exclusion from occupying the dwelling as a home during the day. Although very short stays in accommodation could fall within the phrase dwelling he occupies as his home in s130(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and reg 7 and 12(1) of the HB Regs 2006, on the facts of this case, the test was not satisfied. Comment: The Upper Tribunal stressed that it was not setting a precedent and that the case turned on its own particular facts. However, there have been media reports of some local authorities ceasing to pay HB for night shelters in the light of the ruling. 13 On 11 June 2013, when asked for guidance for local authorities, the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, responded as follows:... I emphasise that there is absolutely no change here in what is the kind of home for which housing benefit is appropriate. Where that is, in the case of Anglesey, a hall where the showers for those people are half a mile away, it may be that other forms of support, such as the Supporting People programme or homelessness prevention are more appropriate (Hansard HL Debates 11 June 2013, col 1516). On 19 June 2013 the DWP and the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a note to local authorities to address misunderstandings about the role of housing benefit in night shelters, which states There has been no sudden change in the law... just as it was never true that all users of night shelters were automatically entitled to Housing Benefit, neither is it true that all users of night shelters are now excluded. 14 Referrals to a rent officer (reg 14) Whether failure to make special provision for Romani Gypsies on privately owned caravan sites is discriminatory: article 14 of the convention R ((1) Knowles (2) Knowles) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (interested party) [2013] EWHC 19 (Admin), 17 January 2013 The claimants were Romani Gypsies, who had lived in caravans in the Lancaster area for all of their lives as part of the Romani community. They had previously been renting pitches on a local authority caravan site where the rent was paid in full by HB. As a result of problems with anti-social behaviour on that site, the claimants moved to a privately run site where the rent was 80 per week. As the site was privately owned, HB fell to be determined on the basis of a rent assessment by a rent officer and was capped at 36.13, leaving the claimants to make up the shortfall. They contended that they were suffering hardship which would lead eventually to being unable to remain at the site, and therefore they would be unable to carry on their traditional way of life. They applied for a judicial review of the determination, arguing that: the costs of a Gypsy and Traveller site are higher than other sites; the manner in which HB for caravan sites that are privately owned was determined does not take the additional site management costs into account; consequently, the HB scheme as it applies to Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers was discriminatory as it failed to make adequate provision for their essential housing costs living on private sites, and this constituted unlawful discrimination which was contrary to article 14 (read with article 1 of the First Protocol and/or article 8) of the convention when their situation was compared with that of non-gypsies and Travellers on private sites (who do not have such additional costs); alternatively, relying on Burnip, Trengrove and Gorry v Birmingham City Council and others or Burnip and others v Birmingham City Council and others (above), the scheme treats Gypsies and Travellers on private sites and non-gypsies and Travellers on private sites as the same, in circumstances in which they are in significantly different situations: the former having additional management costs, and the latter not. Dismissing the claim, Hickinbottom J held that the claimants had failed to establish a fundamental element in their claim, namely, that there are additional costs associated with the running of Gypsy and Traveller sites compared with other sites. On the evidence before the court, the additional costs for items such as: maintenance of fences; refuse disposal; scrap metal removal; environmental health issues; health and safety; and general security were ineligible for HB purposes as they were for services which could not be attributable to accommodation. Even making an assumption in favour of the claimants that there were some additional costs which were eligible as rent under the HB scheme, he was satisfied that the treatment of Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers on private sites was reasonable and proportionate, so that the discrimination claim could not be established. Assessment of self-employed earnings (reg 30(1)) Period to be used when there are fluctuations in income CC v Braintree DC (HB) [2013] UKUT 104 (AAC), 26 February 2013 (CH/912/2012) C, who was self-employed, contended that there had been a substantial downturn in her work because of her illness. However, the council applied a formula based on her previous year s accounts to determine her entitlement to benefit (apart from making an allowance for the period when she was doing no work at all). On C s appeal, a tribunal upheld that approach. She further appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Allowing her appeal, the judge held that the regulations require the council to estimate earnings over such period as is appropriate in order that his average weekly earnings may be estimated accurately (reg 30(1). Where there had been a significant change in weekly earnings from the previous year, some allowance should be made for the downturn or upturn; once the earnings level has recovered, or even started to recover, it was open to the council to recalculate average earnings rather than using historic figures that no longer represented current earnings accurately. It was held that there is no need to use a period of 12 months in every case: a shorter period can be selected, where appropriate. The case was remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal. Information required in the decision letter (reg 90 and Sch 9) Claimant prejudiced by deficiencies in local authority s presentation of its case IS v Craven DC (HB) [2013] UKUT 19 (AAC), 15 January 2013 (CH/675/2012) C had rented a mobile home from his mother since C did not pay the HB payment to her, but paid it direct to the caravan park owner. On the death of his mother, C inherited the mobile home. From that date, HB was awarded in respect of the ground rent charge. In 2010, the council decided that C had been overpaid HB since April 1997 and that 30, was recoverable from him. C appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, but did not attend the oral hearing of his appeal. The tribunal dismissed his appeal. It held that C had had no legal liability to pay rent to his mother. This decision was based largely on the tribunal s finding that the rules for the caravan

4 July/August 2013 LegalAction law&practice/social security 15 park stated that the sub-letting of a mobile home was strictly forbidden. C brought a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal concluded that substantial prejudice had been caused to C by the council s presentation of the case. It had not been made clear to C why it was being said that he had been overpaid, and therefore why the overpayment was recoverable from him: The decision letter had failed to identify the reasons why there was an overpayment and why it was recoverable from C, as required by HB Regs 2006 reg 90 and Sch 9 para 15(1)(b). The council s appeal response to the tribunal also failed to explain clearly why C had been overpaid and why the overpayment was recoverable from him. The First-tier Tribunal had failed to identify the deficiencies in the council s decisionmaking procedures that had then prejudiced C s right to a fair appeal hearing, and had failed to take any steps to have those deficiencies corrected (R(H) 3/04, 8 October 2003 at para 76). The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal s decision as it had failed properly to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in C s absence under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules (TP(FtT)(SEC) Rules) 2008 SI No 2685 r31(2). The substantial prejudice caused to C could have been addressed by adjourning the hearing with directions to the council to file a replacement appeal response that properly set out and explained the factual and legal basis for its decision. The Upper Tribunal also held that it was wrong to assume that because there was a clause against sub-letting in the mother s lease with the mobile home park, there could not have been a valid agreement between mother and son for him to occupy the caravan (see CH/2959/2006, 21 December 2006 at para 21). Furthermore, even if that agreement only vested in C a right to occupy the caravan as a licensee, such payments could qualify for HB (HB Regs 2006 reg 12(1)(b)). The appeal was remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal. Overpayments (reg 100) Reasonably be expected to realise Hull City Council v JS (HB) [2012] UKUT 447 (AAC), 20 December 2012 (CH/617/2012) C, who was aged 23, was awarded HB at per week, when he received income-based jobseeker s allowance. On 16 March 2011, he started work and made a fresh claim for HB. He provided the council with a copy of his first payslip dated 31 March The council notified C that he would be receiving HB of per week. The notification letter was six pages long and included two pages of calculations, the last page of which said that the gross weekly income was 54.74, having treated the payslip as being for a full month when it was just for the period from 16 March (para 3). The council later decided that there had been an overpayment of HB totalling , which was recoverable. C s appeal to a First-tier Tribunal was upheld. The tribunal held that the error was not easily identifiable from the two pages of figures, and that given C s age and experience he was:... entitled to trust in the professional expertise of the council officers. He had provided all the information and had no reason to think a mistake was likely (para 9). The Upper Tribunal reviewed the authorities on the exemption in regulation 100(2) to the rule that overpayments are recoverable. The tribunal held that: the question of what the claimant could reasonably be expected to realise was a question of fact for the tribunal; what must appear was that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment; it is not sufficient that he should have realised that there might have been one (R v Liverpool City Council ex p Griffiths [1990] 22 HLR 312 at 317); the test requires the tribunal to determine whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that the amount s/he was receiving definitely contained some element of overpayment (CH/2554/2002, 11 September 2002); and accordingly, a claimant who has given clear and correct information is entitled to start from the basis that the local authority has such information when stating his/her weekly income (CH/2943/2007, 22 February 2008). The local authority sought to rely on CH/240/2009 which was based on what claimants in general can be expected to do. This approach was rejected by the judge on that basis that it was inconsistent with the wording used in the regulation and the three-stage approach in described in CH/2554/2002 (above). What the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise must be a subjective matter depending on his/her abilities and understanding. C s income for the second half of March was under 120 per week, and even if he had noticed the mistake in the figures, as a relatively new claimant, it was unlikely that he would have realised, with such a small income, that the sums he received were overpayments. The council s appeal was dismissed. Rent Officers (HB Functions) (Amendment) Order 2012 Legal challenge to order amending how LHA uprating calculated R (Zacchaeus 2000 Trust) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 233 (Admin), 15 February 2013 C, a charity concerned with the relief of poverty, challenged by judicial review the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order (the RO(HBF) (Amendment) Order) 2012 SI No 646, under which LHA rates are to be uprated by the percentage annual increase in the CPI, meaning that increases in HB would be capped at the level of general inflation, even if the increase in the rental market was higher. Consequently, LHA rates would fall behind the actual rents being charged. C argued that the RO(HBF) (Amendment) Order was unlawful because it was ultra vires and the secretary of state had failed to comply with his duties under Equality Act 2010 s149, having failed to have regard to the problems associated with having to move to a different area for disabled people and children of school age. In addition, it was argued that ethnic minority families tended to be larger, and the new regime meant that bigger families were more likely to be homeless, or to have to move, than smaller families. Dismissing the application, Underhill J held that: the legislation gave the secretary of state wide discretion to set the terms of the scheme, and this included the power to cap increases in HB at the level of general inflation, notwithstanding that rents may have increased at a greater rate; the equality impact assessment (EIA) referred to the particular difficulties which disabled people might encounter if they had to move, and therefore the secretary of state had a clear awareness of the potential problems and had considered how they might be mitigated; there was no reason for the secretary of state to believe that there might be an equality issue affecting the impact on children who had to move schools; and the issue of whether the cap would have a disproportionate impact on claimants with large families had been sufficiently considered in the EIA published in March 2011 (and revised in October 2011), and so the secretary of state was not required to carry out any further assessment. The Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal (Case No C1/2013/0768).

5 16 LegalAction law&practice/social security July/August 2013 Practice and procedure Treatment of criminal conviction in proceedings by a tribunal Newcastle City Council v LW (HB) [2013] UKUT 123 (AAC), 5 March 2013 (CH/471/2012) C received HB and CTB from 2000 to 2007, when time she and her partner bought C s council home under the right to buy scheme. In her benefit claims, C had declared that only her children lived with her. However, in her right to buy claim and mortgage application C had stated that her partner had been living with her for several years. The council superseded the award of HB and CTB, and sought to recover the overpayment of benefit from C. C appealed to a First-tier tribunal. She was charged with two offences relating to the benefit claims. She pleaded guilty to one charge, and other charge was not pursued. She told the tribunal that she had only pleaded guilty because there was a risk of prosecution for mortgage fraud if she had been successful in defending the charge. The tribunal found that C was not cohabiting with her partner when she claimed HB and CTB, and her appeal was allowed. The council appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the tribunal should have considered itself bound by the criminal conviction. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, but not on the ground put forward by the council. It gave the following summary of how a criminal conviction should be treated within social security proceedings by a tribunal. First, as social security proceedings were not subject to the strict rules of evidence, they were outside the ambit of Civil Evidence Act 1968 ss11 and 18; therefore, a conviction in social security proceedings does not alter the legal burden of proof (ie, it does not shift to the claimant). Second, it is in general contrary to public policy for a party to use civil proceedings to attack a criminal conviction against him/herself (Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police and others [1982] AC 529, 13 November 1981). Third, there should nevertheless be an exception to this general rule in social security proceedings given that entitlement to benefits was to be determined by a specialist tribunal; the tribunal should be able, in appropriate cases, to substitute its own findings about entitlement to benefit under social security law for that of the criminal court and be able to make its own findings about the inferences and conclusion to be drawn from primary facts as to the claimant s entitlement to benefit. It was held that in the present case, public policy considerations should prevent C from mounting an attack on her conviction. C claimed that she had pleaded guilty to one of the benefit fraud charges so as to avoid admitting to lying on the mortgage application form as this would have laid her open to more serious charges. This amounted to an abuse of process, and C should not be permitted to resile from her guilty plea in the criminal proceedings. It was directed that the new tribunal should obtain details of the two charges for the fresh hearing of the appeal. Duty to process appeal within a reasonable time: article 6 MB v Wychavon DC (HB) [2013] UKUT 67 (AAC), 30 January 2013 (CH/2120/2012) The HB appeal was not processed and passed to the First-tier Tribunal for nearly a year. The judge severely criticised the local authority for the long delay, which he described as wholly unacceptable (para 8). The judge said that: the Local Government Ombudsman has made it clear (Scarborough BC 01/C/13400, March 2002) that authorities should aim to refer all appeals to HM Courts and Tribunals Service within 28 days; a claimant is entitled under article 6 of the convention to have his/her appeal heard within a reasonable time, and this could be particularly important in HB cases where a delay could cost a tenant his/her home; and a failure for almost a year to take the simple administrative step needed to commence the proceedings also prevented the claimant from participating in the proceedings during that time, and caused serious delay which was not compatible with the proper consideration of the issues. This was therefore in breach of the overriding objective and the parties obligation to co-operate with the tribunal in TP(FtT)(SEC) Rules r2. 1 See also Elizabeth Weil, The Welfare Reform Act 2012: changes to benefits and tax credits Part 1 and The Welfare Reform Act 2012: changes to benefits and tax credits Part 2, May and June 2013, Legal Action 13 and 20, and see page 35 of this issue. 2 DWP circulars, bulletins and other guidance are available at: Readers should note that although HB/CTB circulars can provide useful guidance, they are not necessarily an authoritative statement of the law. 3 Visit: for the details of the case and its progress. 4 See Direct Payment Demonstration Project: learning and payment figures MAY 2013, available at: and Direct Payments Demonstration Projects: learning the lessons, six months in, May 2013, available at: attachment_data/file/203149/rrep839.pdf. 5 See Housing benefit law update, September 2010 and 2011 Legal Action 11 and 16 and Housing benefit law update 2012, November 2012 Legal Action See Local Housing Allowance Targeted Affordability Funding: call for evidence, in respect of a consultation ending on 28 July 2013, available at: ttachment_data/file/208766/lha-call-forevidence.pdf. 7 See note 3. 8 The Making Best Use of Stock Team at the Chartered Institute of Housing has published a guide to preparing for the social sector size criteria (bedroom tax). The guide is supported by the National Housing Federation, the Northern Housing Consortium and the Local Government Association, June 2012, available at: nload%20pdfs/making%20it%20fit.pdf. 9 The bedroom tax: some home truths, March 2013, available at: http//issuu.com/national housingfederation/docs/bedroom_tax_home_truths /1?e=0/ Discretionary housing payments guidance manual: including local authority good practice guide, available at: 11 See Demand for hardship fund surges, Inside Housing, 9 May 2013, available at: housing.co.uk/tenancies/demand-for-hardshipfund-surges/ article and Welfare reforms in Wales leading to sharp increase in DHP applications, 17 June 2013, available at: article. 12 File reference numbers are included only to assist with accessing decisions. The file number may for instance be used when accessing Administrative Appeals Chamber (Upper Tribunal) decisions. Readers should note that the file number is neither the official citation nor a part of it. 13 Patrick Butler and Nigel Bunyan, Benefits rule risks closure of night shelters forcing hundreds onto streets, The Guardian, 15 May 2013, available at: may/15/benfits-rule-closing-night-shelters and a version appeared in The Guardian, 16 May 2013, p Nightshelter update: the law hasn t changed, available at: blogs/team/nightshelter-update-law-hasn tchanged#.udholjfwy0n. Bethan Harris and Desmond Rutledge are barristers at Garden Court Chambers, London.