Mahmoudi, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lewisham & Anor

Under Regulation 7(8) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, adapting a dwelling to meet disablement needs does not require structural alteration. Adaptation may include changing or modifying a dwelling, including through redecoration or other non-structural work, so that it becomes more suitable for the disabled person’s needs. The question depends on the nature of those needs and the result of the work. The delay must still be reasonable and necessary, linked to the disablement needs, and no longer than four weeks before occupation. The provision is a specific benefit for disabled claimants and should not be narrowly construed merely because it operates as an exception to the ordinary one-dwelling rule.

Mr Mahmoudi, who was seriously disabled and required regular dialysis, was offered new accommodation but incurred liability before moving in. His claim for housing benefit was refused by the benefit officer. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 23 September 2010, and the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber dismissed a further appeal on 12 June 2013: [2013] UKUT 026 (AAC).

The appeal concerned whether necessary redecoration of the new dwelling could amount to adaptation to meet disablement needs under Regulation 7(8)(c)(i) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. An Article 14 ECHR ground was also raised, but the Court of Appeal declined to hear argument on it.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal on the statutory construction issue. It brought the proceedings to an end without remitting the matter to the Upper Tribunal.

1. Section 130(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 establishes the general rule that housing benefit depends on liability for, and occupation of, a dwelling as the claimant’s home. Regulation 7(8) is a specific exception to that rule.
2. The phrase “adapt the dwelling to meet the disablement needs” in Regulation 7(8)(c)(i) has a purposive and practical meaning. It can mean changing or modifying the dwelling to make it suitable for the disabled person’s needs. It does not require physical interference with the structure or fabric of the building, nor works of any particular type.
3. Regulation 7(8)(c) is directed specifically to the needs of disabled claimants. It is not confined to cases involving concurrent housing-benefit claims for two dwellings. A claimant may qualify even if no housing benefit is being received for the former accommodation. It would be irrational to include structural refitting while excluding necessary decoration undertaken to meet the same disablement needs.
4. The broader construction does not make the exception unlimited. The delay must remain reasonable and necessary, must be linked to meeting disablement needs, and must fall within the maximum four-week period immediately before moving in. Whether a dwelling has been adapted depends on the claimant’s needs and the result of the work.
5. The earlier approach in CH/1363/2006 and R(H)4/07, which treated structural or fabric alteration as necessary, was not followed. The Court also considered the inhibitions applicable to second appeals from the Upper Tribunal, referring to Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security [2003] 3 All ER 279 and Obrey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1584. The point was a hard-edged issue of statutory interpretation which the Court was entitled to determine under section 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
6. The Court declined to hear argument on Article 14 of the ECHR and made no substantive determination on that issue. Its conclusion on construction disposed of the appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 6 February 2014, allowed the appeal on the construction issue and ended the proceedings without remittal: [2014] EWCA Civ 284.
2. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — Dismissed the appeal on 12 June 2013: [2013] UKUT 026 (AAC).
3. First-tier Tribunal — Dismissed the appeal on 23 September 2010 after the benefit officer had refused the housing-benefit claim.