Regina v. Housing Benefit Review Board of The City of Westminster Ex Parte Mehanne

Where regulation 11(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 requires an authority to reduce an unreasonably high eligible rent, the authority must make a reduction but retains discretion over its amount. The cost of suitable alternative accommodation is a mandatory consideration carrying the greatest weight. The authority may also consider any matter properly regarded as relevant to the claimant’s housing situation, including circumstances bearing on hardship and the risk of homelessness.

The reduction cannot take eligible rent below the cost of suitable alternative accommodation. The authority decides the weight attributable to permissible additional factors while balancing housing needs against proper protection of public funds.

The respondent rented a flat for £174.51 per week. The local authority concluded that this was unreasonably high compared with suitable accommodation elsewhere and reduced his eligible rent to £150 under regulation 11(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. Its review board treated itself as unable to consider his personal housing circumstances when fixing the amount of the reduction.

A deputy High Court judge upheld that construction in an unreported judgment dated 11 December 1997. The Court of Appeal reversed it: [2000] 1 WLR 16. The review board appealed.

The central question was whether an authority fixing the amount of a mandatory reduction could consider personal circumstances properly relevant to the claimant’s housing situation, in addition to the cost of suitable alternative accommodation.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Bingham delivered the leading speech. Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope and Lord Hutton agreed with his reasons. Lord Hobhouse agreed that the review board had misconstrued the Regulations and that the appeal should be dismissed.

2. Per Lord Bingham, regulation 11(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 imposed a mandatory obligation to make some reduction once the rent was found unreasonably high. Substitution of “shall” for “may” removed the discretion whether to reduce the rent. It did not remove the authority’s judgment as to the amount, which remained the amount it considered appropriate.

3. The authority was not required mechanically to reduce eligible rent to the cost of suitable alternative accommodation. That cost was a mandatory consideration carrying the greatest weight, but the expression “in particular” did not exclude other considerations. The reduction could not take eligible rent below the alternative rent.

4. Per Lord Bingham, the authority could consider other matters which it properly regarded as relevant to the amount of the reduction. These included circumstances relevant to the claimant’s housing situation, such as pregnancy, difficulty in finding accommodation, the consequences of moving and the potential operation of the authority’s homelessness responsibilities. The decision-maker retained responsibility for the weight given to each factor. Mere inability to pay the rent did not, without more, constitute a relevant housing circumstance.

5. Per Lord Hope, the scheme sought both to protect public funds and to meet genuine housing needs. Its purpose should not be construed as producing homelessness. Regulation 11(3) showed that housing-related hardship factors were capable of consideration under regulation 11(2), although paragraph (3) gave priority cases additional protection. The authority could therefore balance the risk of homelessness and related hardship against undue demands on the public purse.

6. The review board’s corrected decision of 15 September 1996 was quashed. The respondent’s request for further review was remitted for fresh determination according to law by a differently constituted board. The review board was ordered to pay the costs in the House.

1. House of Lords: The review board’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. Its decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted board.
2. Court of Appeal: Stuart-Smith, Thorpe and Mummery LJJ held that relevant personal housing circumstances could be considered when fixing the amount of the reduction: [2000] 1 WLR 16.
3. High Court: A deputy judge, Mr Gerald Moriarty QC, held in an unreported judgment dated 11 December 1997 that such circumstances could not be considered.