Brown v South Yorkshire Police Authority

Transitional rent allowance provisions in the Police Regulations 1987 protect an officer’s pre-1990 rent-allowance entitlement during the relevant period. The period ends only on the day before the date when the new housing allowance, assessed on that same date, first equals or exceeds the total of the transitional allowance and specified additions. A change in personal circumstances may reduce the rate under regulation 49B(5), but does not itself end eligibility. Remarriage may restore the higher rate; it does not terminate the relevant period.

The claimant, a serving police officer, received a transitional rent allowance after rent allowances were replaced by housing allowances. Following separation, his allowance was reduced under regulation 49B(5). After remarriage, the Authority stopped paying transitional rent allowance and paid only the standard-rate housing allowance.

The Manchester County Court, District Judge McGrath, gave judgment for the claimant for £7,876.33 plus interest. The Authority appealed, contending that remarriage ended the claimant’s entitlement. The central issue was whether regulation 49B required transitional rent allowance to cease on remarriage or whether the relevant period continued.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously, with costs subject to detailed assessment.

1. Lord Justice Dyson held that regulation 49B(1) applied because the claimant had been entitled to a rent allowance on 31 March 1990 and his previous rent allowance, together with compensatory grant, exceeded the housing allowance available under the amended scheme. Under regulation 49B(2), he was therefore entitled to transitional rent allowance for any part of the relevant period during which he remained eligible to receive a housing allowance.

2. Regulation 49B(4) defined the relevant period. It began on 1 April 1990 and, subject to specified termination events, ended on the day before the date when the housing allowance then payable first equalled or exceeded the transitional rent allowance, other relevant allowances and compensatory grant then payable. Regulation 49B(4)(b) required a comparison on the same qualifying date. It did not require the alleged rolling comparison between the last day on which transitional rent allowance was paid and the following day.

3. The relevant period terminated only on the events specified in regulation 49B(4), namely resignation other than on immediate transfer to another force, retirement, discharge or dismissal. None occurred here. Remarriage was not a terminating event.

4. Regulation 49B(5) addressed the level of the allowance, not eligibility for transitional rent allowance or the duration of the relevant period. Its purpose was to prevent an officer who had held a maximum limit rent allowance because of married status from retaining that level after a change in personal circumstances made him eligible only for a half-rate housing allowance. It reduced the transitional rent allowance to the flat-rate rent allowance level while it was paid instead of the half-rate housing allowance.

5. On remarriage, regulation 49B(5) ceased to apply because the claimant would again have been eligible for a standard-rate housing allowance. His underlying entitlement under regulation 49B(1), (2) and (4) nevertheless continued, and the Authority was required to pay transitional rent allowance at the rate applicable on 31 March 1990.

Lord Justice Thorpe agreed with Lord Justice Dyson.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the Authority’s appeal and ordered costs subject to detailed assessment: [2001] EWCA Civ 1080.
2. Manchester County Court: District Judge McGrath gave judgment for the claimant for £7,876.33 plus interest.