R v South Ribble Borough Council, Ex parte Benjamin Hamilton

A housing-benefit review board may determine whether an award of income support on which a claim depends was obtained by fraud. A person is not “on income support” for the purposes of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 unless lawfully in receipt of it. An income-support award procured dishonestly therefore cannot establish entitlement to maximum housing benefit.

This construction accords with the statutory scheme for recovery of overpayments and with the principle that legislation should not enable a claimant to obtain an advantage from his own fraud. A provision permitting withholding while fresh evidence about income or capital is determined does not prevent the board from deciding fraud itself.

The appellant claimed housing benefit after stating that he was receiving income support. The local authority concluded that his income-support claim had been obtained by fraud and refused housing benefit. A first review-board decision was quashed by the High Court on 4 July 1997 because its reasons were inadequate.

A differently constituted review board reheard the matter on 3 February 1998 and again rejected the claim. Laws J refused judicial review on 14 December 1998. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The central issue was whether a housing-benefit review board was bound by a current award of income support, or could find that the award was vitiated by fraud.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Scott Baker J held, with whom Robert Walker and Henry LJJ agreed, that the review board could determine that the income support on which the claim depended had been obtained fraudulently.

2. Section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and regulation 2 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 required the claimant to be lawfully in receipt of income support. In this context, “lawfully” meant neither fraudulently nor dishonestly. The board was therefore not bound to treat an income-support award as conclusively establishing housing-benefit entitlement where it found that the award was fraudulently obtained.

3. The statutory structure supported that conclusion. The provisions concerning overpayments, recovery and benefit fraud showed that Parliament did not intend a claimant to retain, or obtain, housing benefit through fraud or material misrepresentation. The contrary construction would mean that benefit paid pursuant to a fraudulent income-support award was not an overpayment because the claimant would technically remain entitled to it.

4. R v Housing Benefits Review Board of Penwith District Council, ex parte Menear (1990) 24 HLR 115 was correct on its facts, where the income-support entitlement was unimpeachable and no fraud arose. It did not decide that a fraudulently obtained income-support award carried housing-benefit entitlement.

5. Regulation 95(4A) permitted withholding where fresh evidence created reasonable doubt about the amount of income or capital. It was not directed to fraud and did not require the board to defer its decision pending a separate income-support determination. The general principle, reflected in R v London Borough of Barnet, Ex parte Shah [1983] AC 309, was independently fatal to the appeal: legislation should not be construed to permit a person to profit from his own fraud.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The court upheld Laws J’s refusal of judicial review.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Crown Office List (Laws J): On 14 December 1998, judicial review of the reheard review-board decision was refused.
• High Court: On 4 July 1997, the earlier review-board decision was quashed because the reasons given were inadequate.