Burton v New Forest District Council

For housing benefit, an owner is the person who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple, as defined by regulation 2(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. A registered proprietor with absolute title satisfies that definition even where the property is held on trust and a disposal would breach trust. The statutory test concerns the legal power to convey the fee simple, not beneficial ownership or the propriety of the proposed disposal. A transferee who acquires registered title for value takes free of the trust under section 20(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925. Housing benefit administrators need not investigate the beneficial background to registered title. An appellate commissioner confined to errors of law must not reverse factual findings without identifying perversity or irrationality.

Stephen Burton applied to New Forest District Council on 2 November 2001 for housing benefit in respect of 12 Carvers Lane. The council refused the claim under regulation 10(2)(c) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, treating him as the owner because he remained the registered proprietor with absolute title.

A tribunal allowed his appeal, accepting that he held the legal estate as trustee and was not beneficially entitled. On the council’s appeal, the Social Security Commissioner restored the refusal, concluding that the registered proprietor was entitled to dispose of the fee simple under section 20(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925. The central issue was whether a trustee who was registered as proprietor was an owner within regulation 2(1)(a), and therefore barred from benefit by regulation 10(2)(c).

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant was an owner within regulation 2(1)(a) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 when he applied for benefit. The payments made to the Nay trust were therefore payments by an owner within regulation 10(2)(c).
2. Under section 20(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925, a registered proprietor with absolute title could convey the fee simple for valuable consideration so that the transferee took free of the trust. The proprietor’s continuing duties to account for the proceeds, and the possibility that the disposal would breach trust, did not invalidate the disposal.
3. The word owner in regulation 2(1)(a) was not confined to a beneficial owner. The relevant question was whether the person was for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple. The practical construction also enabled administrators to determine ownership from the register without investigating the beneficial interests behind it.
4. Obiter, regulation 7(1)(e) was capable of applying where a trustee was not entitled to dispose of the fee simple but was liable to make payments to the trust for occupation. Regulation 7(1B) could remove the exclusion where the claimant established that the liability was not intended to exploit the housing benefit scheme.
5. Obiter, a Social Security Commissioner hearing an appeal limited to errors of law could interfere with factual findings only where they were perverse, irrational, unsupported by evidence, reached by ignoring relevant evidence, or affected by wholly irrelevant matters. The commissioner had not explained why that threshold was met. The appellant was entitled to be judged on the basis that the trust arrangements were lawful and proper.
6. Gage LJ agreed with Wall LJ’s reasoning. Holman J agreed with both judgments.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2004] EWCA Civ 1510. Appeal from the Social Security Commissioner’s decision in CH/563/03 dismissed.
• Social Security Commissioner: Allowed the district council’s appeal from the tribunal and restored the refusal of housing benefit; later granted the appellant permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• Single member tribunal: Allowed the appellant’s appeal and determined that he was entitled to housing benefit.
• New Forest District Council: Refused the application for housing benefit on 20 February 2002.