The Rent Service v Heffernan

Under the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997, a “locality” for determining local reference rent must comprise at least two adjoining neighbourhoods, varied residential property and tenures, and an area in which a tenant could reasonably be expected to live having regard to accessible services and travel distances.

The reference to services of the same type and similar standard requires a practical assessment. It does not require detailed service-by-service comparisons or segregation of affluent and deprived areas. A locality may be large, including a whole city, provided the rent officer’s assessment is sufficient and the area remains workable for determining local reference rent.

The Rent Service appealed against the decision of His Honour Judge Gilbart QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, which quashed housing benefit redeterminations concerning the respondent’s tenancy in Sheffield. The issue was the meaning and application of “locality” in paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997, as amended in 2001.

The rent officer had treated Sheffield and its rural hinterland as the relevant locality, relying on an assessment of shopping, healthcare, education, recreation, banking and transport. The respondent argued that paragraph 4(6)(b) required detailed qualitative comparisons of facilities and services between neighbourhoods. The central questions were whether the assessment was legally sufficient and whether Sheffield was too extensive to constitute a locality.

1. Appeal allowed. The redeterminations were permitted to stand.
2. Paragraph 4(6) creates a hierarchy of vicinity, neighbourhood and locality. A locality must contain at least two adjoining neighbourhoods and residential premises of varied types and tenures. These are minimum requirements and do not prescribe a maximum area.
3. The reasonable-expectation test in paragraph 4(6)(b) concerns whether a tenant could reasonably be expected to live in another part of the proposed area, having regard to accessible facilities and services and travel by public and private transport. It favours a practical assessment of a broader area rather than an artificially narrow geographical restriction.
4. The words “same type and similar standard” do not require detailed service-by-service socio-economic comparisons. In context, “standard” for educational and medical services may mean services meeting the requirements of the law and the appropriate public authorities.
5. A locality may nevertheless be too large if it prevents a workable and manageable assessment. On the evidence, the assessment of Sheffield and its rural hinterland satisfied paragraph 4(6), and the locality was not too large.
6. The court followed the guidance in R (Sadaat & Others) v The Rent Service [2001] EWCA 1559 that expert rent officers should form their own view of precise boundaries while remaining within the law. The amended Order prevented the earlier approach from being applied directly.
7. Material should be available to explain how locality boundaries were first fixed. It would also be unsatisfactory for boundaries to differ between rent officers working in the same area without general review.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2007] EWCA Civ 544: allowed the appeal and allowed the redeterminations to stand.
2. Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division [2006] EWHC 2478 (Admin): quashed the housing benefit redeterminations.