Saxby, R (on the application of) v Milton Keynes Housing Benefit Review Board

Housing benefit entitlement is not limited to payments attributable to the claimant’s own or family occupation. Where a claimant is legally liable for periodical payments in respect of a dwelling occupied as their home, the relevant payments may cover the whole dwelling, even though other residents also live there. Payments calculated by reference to the number of residents remain payments in respect of the dwelling and are not merely administrative obligations. Non-dependant deductions address the contributions of other residents, while regulation 7(b) provides protection against liabilities created to exploit the scheme.

The claimant was an Elder living with his wife and other residents in a community house owned by the Jesus Fellowship Community Trust. The Elders were licensees and were legally liable to the Trust for payments in respect of the residents’ occupation, including their own occupation. The Housing Benefit Review Board restricted the claimant’s eligible rent to the amounts attributable to himself and his wife.

Hidden J granted judicial review. The Board appealed, arguing that payments relating to other residents were an administrative responsibility rather than payments in respect of the claimant’s dwelling. The central issue was whether the statutory scheme permitted housing benefit to be calculated by reference to the claimant’s liability for the whole dwelling.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Housing Benefit Review Board had misconstrued the statutory scheme. Hidden J was right to grant judicial review. The Board was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, subject to detailed assessment, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. Under section 130(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, read with regulation 10(1)(b) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, the relevant question is whether the claimant is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling which he occupies as his home. The wording does not restrict eligible payments to those attributable to the claimant’s own accommodation or that of his family.
3. The claimant’s liability to the Trust was a legal liability for payments in respect of the whole house. The fact that the payments were calculated by reference to the number of residents did not alter their character. They were periodical payments made by the Elders as licensees in respect of their licence to occupy the dwelling, rather than merely sums transmitted on behalf of other residents.
4. The structure of the Regulations supported that construction. The non-dependant deduction provisions contemplate that people other than the claimant may live in the same dwelling and make contributions towards its rent. Restricting the claim to the claimant’s personal contribution while also making deductions for other adult residents would produce an anomalous result.
5. The construction was consistent with the policy explained in R v Rugby Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board ex p Harrison and others (1995) 93 LGR 139. Any artificial liability created to take advantage of the scheme remained capable of being addressed under regulation 7(b), but no such abuse had been established here.
6. Lord Justice Judge agreed with Lady Justice Hale’s construction and conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the decision of Hidden J granting judicial review of the Review Board’s determination. Appeal dismissed.
• Housing Benefit Review Board: Determined that only payments attributable to the claimant and his wife should be used in calculating housing benefit.