Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RR (HB)

For the social-sector size criteria, whether a room is a bedroom under regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 is determined objectively by reference to the property in its vacant state. The occupier’s actual use of the room, personal needs and reasons for using it differently are immaterial.

Relevant matters include the room’s physical characteristics, layout, access, light, ventilation and privacy. A landlord’s description is a useful starting point but is not conclusive. In a borderline case, a social landlord’s designation may determine the issue where it accords with the objective features and potential use of the property.

The claimant, a disabled single man, occupied a house described in his tenancy agreement as having three bedrooms. He used the front ground-floor room as a dining and quiet living room. The local authority treated that room as a third bedroom and reduced his eligible rent by 14 per cent from 1 April 2013.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal. It held that the room was not a bedroom because it had not been used for sleeping during the tenancy. The Secretary of State appealed on a point of law.

The central issue was whether the room was a bedroom for regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, and whether the claimant’s actual use of it could affect that classification.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal erred in treating the claimant’s actual use of the front ground-floor room as relevant. Its decision was set aside.

2. Regulation B13 requires an objective classification of the dwelling as vacant. The room’s actual use by the claimant, his disabilities, and the reasons why he and his parents chose to use it as a dining or living room did not determine whether it was a bedroom. The judge followed the approach in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Nelson (HB) [2014] UKUT 525 (AAC) and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v City of Glasgow Council [2017] CSIH 35.

3. The objective inquiry nevertheless requires a distinction between bedrooms and other rooms. Physical characteristics and the relationship of the room to the rest of the house were material. Relevant considerations included size, layout, access, lighting, ventilation and privacy. The use of similar rooms in comparable local properties could assist, but was not decisive.

4. The tenancy description was not conclusive. It was, however, a relevant starting point. The disputed room was large enough, private, separately accessed and conveniently close to the only bathroom. Once its gas fire had been removed, it could reasonably be used as a bedroom. Although the house had a flexible two- or three-bedroom layout, the social landlord’s designation of it as a three-bedroom property was consistent with the objective assessment and was determinative in this borderline case.

5. The claimant was entitled to two bedrooms. The third bedroom therefore required a 14 per cent reduction under regulation B13. The Upper Tribunal substituted a decision that housing benefit from 1 April 2013 be assessed on that basis. Any challenge to discretionary housing payments lay outside this appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): The Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and substituted.
• First-tier Tribunal: On 23 September 2014, it allowed the claimant’s appeal and treated the dwelling as a two-bedroom property.
• Local authority: Knowsley Borough Council decided on 5 April 2013 that the eligible rent was to be reduced by 14 per cent from 1 April 2013.