Naghshbandi v London Borough of Camden & Ors

A statutory deeming provision must be applied in accordance with the legislative purpose it was enacted to achieve. It should be carried as far as necessary to achieve that purpose, but no further. Regulation 48A of the Housing Benefits (General) Regulations 1987 was intended principally to prevent full-time students from claiming housing benefit. Read with Regulation 47, it therefore applied when assessing a student’s own claim, but did not alter the apportionment of rent under Regulation 10(5) where the student was merely another occupier and was not claiming benefit.

The appellant and four family members were jointly liable for rent. The appellant and his wife claimed housing benefit. One occupier, their son, was a full-time student. The authority apportioned the reasonable rent equally among all five liable occupiers, rather than excluding the student and treating the remaining occupiers as liable for larger shares.

The Administrative Court upheld that approach. The appeal concerned the interaction between Regulations 10 and 48A of the Housing Benefits (General) Regulations 1987, and whether the student was to be treated as not liable for rent when calculating the appellant’s eligible rent.

1. Appeal dismissed. The authority had correctly apportioned the reasonable rent equally among the five persons jointly liable for it.
2. Regulation 10(5) requires rent to be apportioned where more than one person is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling. Regulation 48A provides that a full-time student is treated as not liable to make such payments.
3. The scope of Regulation 48A had to be determined by the legislative purpose shown by its history. Its purpose was principally to remove the normal entitlement of full-time students to housing benefit, in conjunction with alternative support for student living costs.
4. Regulation 47 was therefore read narrowly. The provisions of Part VII operated in relation to students making claims for housing benefit, but did not displace Regulation 10(5) where the student was relevant only as a third-party occupier sharing accommodation with the claimant.
5. The court accepted that the appellant’s literal construction had force, but regarded the Secretary of State’s construction as legitimate and as better reflecting reality and legislative purpose. The alleged anomalies concerning Regulations 6, 5(5)(b), 50 and 52 did not justify rejecting that construction. It was unnecessary to reach final conclusions on some of those alleged anomalies.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the decision of Mrs Justice Rafferty in the Administrative Court. The appeal was dismissed.