Housing benefit – Local reference rent – Assessment – Respondent assured tenant challenging award of benefit – Appellant Rent Service redetermining benefit – Court granting judicial review of redetermination – Whether appellant properly applying definition of locality – Appeal allowed
The respondent was an assured tenant of premises in Sheffield, was entitled to housing benefit. The Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 contained the regulations governing assessment of the benefit to which an applicant was entitled. By article 3(1)(a) of the 1997 Order, a rent officer was required to make determinations in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Order. Part 1, as amended in 2001, created a hierarchy of geographical areas – vicinity, neighbourhood and locality – for the purposes of determining entitlement to housing benefit. It provided that a locality had to comprise two or more neighbourhoods and iIt had to contain residential premises of a variety of types held on a variety of tenancies.
Part 1 of para 4 required the rent officer to determine a local reference rent (LRR) to act as a cap on the amount of housing benefit that a claimant was entitled to receive. That determination was to be calculated by reference to a number of factors, including the “locality” of the property, as defined in para 4(6)(b).
The respondent challenged the amount of housing benefit that he had been awarded and the appellant Rent Service redetermined his entitlement. It defined the relevant locality by reference to postcodes that corresponded with the boundaries of the administrative area of the City of Sheffield.
The respondent obtained judicial review of the housing benefit redetermination, which was quashed by the High Court. The judge criticised the manner in which the appellant’s evidence was presented and the substance of the assessment, although the respondent had challenged the assessment solely on the basis of its merits. The appellant appealed.
The sole issue on appeal concerned the meaning of “locality” in para 4(6)(b). In two circulars that were issued by the appellant on 25 June and 14 December 2001, “locality” had been defined as meaning a broad geographical area comprising a number of neighbourhoods with a mix of property types and tenure, where a tenant could, as an alternative to the dwelling in question, reasonably be expected to live and benefit from similar amenities.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The use of the word “locality” contemplated a broader geographical area with the introduction into the 1997 Order of the hierarchy of vicinity, neighbourhood and locality. The requirement for “two or more neighbourhoods” and for a variety of types of premises and a variety of tenancies imposed a minimum requirement in terms of size and variety but did not suggest a maximum.
The reasonable expectation in para 4(6)(b) related to accessibility to services and facilities, including by means of public and private transport, and did not favour a narrow geographical restriction. However, although no maximum was expressed, having regard to parliament’s intention to create a workable and manageable scheme for assessing LRR, an area might be too large to constitute a locality within the meaning of the order.
In all the circumstances, the court was prepared to conclude that the definition of “locality” included in the circulars broadly reflected the statutory intention and that para 4(6)(b) should be construed accordingly.
In the present case, the appellant had been entitled to define the relevant locality as it did and its decision was based upon a sufficient assessment. Although reasonably compact, the locality was large in terms of population but, having regard to the assessment made on this particular redetermination, it was not too large to enable rent officers to perform their duty to determine LRR in accordance with the wording and intention of the statutory scheme.
James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellant; Richard Drabble QC and Jamie Burton (instructed by Irwin Mitchell, of Sheffield) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
