Hall, R (on the application of) v Chichester District Council

Where housing benefit has lawfully been suspended and entitlement terminated for failure to provide required information, the claimant has no continuing entitlement to payment pending an appeal. The local authority has no general discretion to pay benefit in those circumstances.

It may, however, revise the decision under regulation 4(1)(c) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Decisions and Appeal Regulations 2001 while an appeal is pending. That power is discretionary. A refusal to revise is lawful where the authority considers its original decision correct and gives adequate reasons. The European Convention rights relied upon did not require payment or revision.

The claimant sought judicial review of Chichester District Council’s refusal to pay housing benefit pending her appeal against the termination of her entitlement. Her benefit had first been suspended after she failed, according to the council, to provide requested information. She was subsequently evicted for rent arrears.

The claimant accepted that the lawfulness of the original suspension and termination fell to the tribunal and Commissioner on appeal. The issue for the Administrative Court was whether, assuming those decisions were lawful, the council had power or a duty to pay benefit pending the appeal, or had unlawfully refused to revise its decisions. Reliance was placed on Articles 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. The application failed. The court did not determine whether the original suspension or termination was correct. Those matters were for the tribunal and Commissioner.
2. Under regulation 14 of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Decisions and Appeal Regulations 2001, a person whose benefit has been suspended for failure to provide information ceases to be entitled to benefit from the date of suspension, or an earlier date when entitlement ceases. Payment during that period would be inconsistent with suspension and termination. The council therefore had no discretion to pay benefit pending the appeal, on the assumption that the original decisions were lawful.
3. Regulation 4(1)(c) provided a separate power to revise the original decision while an appeal remained undetermined. The power did not depend on a finding of official error or material mistake. It enabled the authority to concede an appeal or reconsider the decision in light of the appeal. It was discretionary, not a duty to revise whenever the claimant faced hardship.
4. The council had been informed that the claimant might lose her home, but was entitled to maintain its decision because it considered the information requirement and termination lawful. Eviction was a serious consequence, but did not require revision of a decision which the authority considered correct.
5. Article 3 was not arguably engaged by the withdrawal of benefit on bona fide grounds. Article 6 was satisfied by the available appeal to an independent and impartial tribunal and Commissioner. Article 7 did not apply because withdrawal of benefit under the regulations was not punishment. Article 8 was potentially engaged by interference with the claimant’s home and private life, but lawful withdrawal of benefit for failure to comply with a lawful information requirement was neither unnecessary nor disproportionate.

The judgment describes a pending appeal from the council’s termination decision to the tribunal and a proposed further appeal or permission application to the Commissioner. Those proceedings were not determined by this court. The judicial review claim was dismissed.