Chapter 16: Reasonable and Unreasonable Requests: Worked Examples

Managing Housing Benefit Claims in Supported Housing | Part C: Evidencing Claims: What Is Reasonable

The law

The legal framework is set out in earlier chapters:

• Regulation 86(1): information must be “reasonably required” to determine entitlement, within one month or longer (Chapter 12, 12.1)
• Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23: a co-operative process; the council asks the questions, the claimant supplies what they reasonably can, and gaps the council could fill itself should not count against the claimant (paras 62 and 63; Chapter 12)
• Suspension and termination: strict notice and time limits apply (Decisions and Appeals Regulations 2001, regulations 11, 13 and 14; CH/1764/2008; Chapter 12, 12.5)
• Findings of fact are not rules: treating the facts of one case as a legal threshold is an error (R(I) 12/75, para 19; Chapter 4, 4.2)

16.1 Requests generally considered reasonable

The following requests are reasonable in principle. Whether a particular request is reasonable also depends on its timing, its scope and what the council already holds.

Request	Why it is reasonable	Proportionate form	Reference
Evidence of landlord status	Exempt status depends on it	Register entry; constitution and accounts for unregistered bodies	DWP guidance, paras 97 to 125; Chapter 13, 13.1
Head lease and connected parties	Shows who provides the accommodation, whether the landlord is in control, and the main cost	Property and lease schedule, representative lease, connected parties statement	DWP guidance, paras 126 to 132; Chapter 13, 13.2
Rent and service charge build-up	Needed to decide eligible rent and reasonableness	Appendix 8 template, on new schemes and rent increases	DWP guidance, paras 168, 196 and 238; Chapter 13, 13.5
Breakdown of an IHM charge	Eligibility is decided activity by activity	Activities, frequency and staff time	DWP guidance, para 190; Allerdale; Chapter 7
Service description	Shows the care, support or supervision provided	Short narrative, staffing and on-call arrangements	DWP guidance, para 137; Chapter 13, 13.4
Third-party support agreement	Shows support is on the landlord’s behalf	Contract or SLA	DWP guidance, para 139; Chapter 5
How ineligible support is funded	Needed to decide whether any deduction applies	Contract or statement	DWP guidance, paras 160 and 187; Chapter 3, 3.4
Tenancy or licence	Liability and charges	Signed agreement	DWP guidance, para 94; Chapter 14, 14.5
Referral and needs assessment	Need for care, support or supervision	Referral note; provider’s assessment	DWP guidance, paras 145 to 149; Chapter 14
Support plan	Support linked to needs	Plan with outcomes and review date	Chapter 14, 14.3
Summary of support delivered	Support is actually provided and more than minimal	Summary activity record; plan reviews; call-out log summary	DW v Oxford CC, para 79; Chapter 15
Changes of circumstances	Accurate entitlement	Prompt notice of changes, including when a tenant leaves	Regulation 88(1); Chapter 14, 14.7

16.2 Requests likely to be overreaching or unlawful

Each example below sets out a request, the problem with it, and a better approach. The examples are illustrations. Each case turns on its own facts.

Example 1: a fixed minimum of hours

“Please confirm that each tenant receives at least three hours of support a week. If not, we cannot treat the accommodation as exempt.”

• The problem. There is no minimum number of hours. The “three hours” figure comes from the council’s own calculation in CH/1289/2007, where the Commissioner said only that it was not obvious that support of that order was minimal (para 21). The DWP guidance says “there is no set number of hours” (para 151). Refusing exempt status for falling below a threshold applies a test the law does not contain.
• A better approach. Ask what support is provided, how often, why the tenant needs it and what difference it makes (Bristol CC v AW, para 31). Use hours as one piece of evidence.
• References: Chapter 8, 8.3 and 8.5; Chapter 15, 15.3.

Example 2: daily contact rules

“Supported housing must involve daily contact with every tenant. Please provide records showing daily contact.”

• The problem. The law requires support that is more than minimal for the claimant, not a set pattern of contact. Supervision can be “precautionary and anticipatory, yet never result in intervention” (R(A) 2/75), and support can be provided by making help available where there is a real prospect of need (DW v Oxford CC, para 79). A daily contact rule would exclude many schemes where tenants need less frequent but real support and supervision.
• A better approach. Ask for the support plan and a summary of contact and interventions, and consider whether the pattern meets the claimant’s needs.
• References: Chapter 6, 6.4 to 6.6; Chapter 8.

Example 3: a demand for support that is not funded by Housing Benefit

“To qualify as exempt, the provider must show that it delivers support funded from outside Housing Benefit, or charges tenants for support.”

• The problem. The definition is met by care, support or supervision. Nothing in it requires support that is ineligible for Housing Benefit. Intensive housing management and maintenance, and housing-related support and supervision, can be support and supervision and can be sufficient on their own (Chapter 7, 7.5). Requiring providers to charge tenants £15 to £20 a week for notional “support” is unnecessary and can harm tenants (Chapter 11, 11.6).
• A better approach. Ask what care, support or supervision is provided, whether it goes beyond general needs management, and whether any ineligible support that is actually provided has a funding source (DWP guidance, paras 160 to 162 and 187, read as Chapter 3, 3.4 explains).
• References: Chapter 3, 3.4; Chapter 7, 7.5; Chapter 9.

Example 4: full rotas and timesheets for every tenant

“Please provide staff rotas, timesheets and time allocated to each tenant for the last 12 months, for every claim.”

• The problem. This asks for far more than the decision needs, often for information that does not exist in that form (Decisions and Appeals Regulations 2001, regulation 13(4)(b)). It ignores what the council already holds and repeats scheme-level evidence with every claim. It may also involve disclosing staff personal data without need (Chapter 12, 12.6).
• A better approach. Ask once, at scheme level, for a staffing summary and a sample rota. For claimants, ask for a summary activity record for a defined period. Use sampling where tenants’ needs are similar (CH/1289/2007, para 28).
• References: Chapter 12, 12.2 and 12.3; Chapter 13, 13.4; Chapter 15.

Example 5: full case notes

“Please send the complete support file for this tenant.”

• The problem. Whole files contain sensitive personal information that the decision does not need. Data must be “limited to what is necessary” (UK GDPR, Article 5(1)(c)).
• A better approach. Ask for the needs assessment, support plan, plan reviews and a summary activity record. Ask for specific extracts if a particular question remains.
• References: Chapter 12, 12.6; Chapter 14, 14.6.

Example 6: a disability benefit, care package or professional assessment as a condition

“We can only accept that the tenant has support needs if they receive PIP or have a care package.”

• The problem. Public funding is “a reasonable indication” of need (DWP guidance, para 148), but its absence is not evidence of no need (para 147). Many tenants with real needs have no disability benefit or professional involvement.
• A better approach. Accept the provider’s own needs assessment by trained staff, alongside any third-party indicators that exist (para 145).
• References: Chapter 14, 14.2 and 14.4.

Example 7: commissioning or a letter of support as a condition

“Exempt status will only be considered where the scheme is commissioned by the council or has a letter of support.”

• The problem. Commissioning is helpful evidence but not a legal requirement. An uncommissioned scheme can provide care, support or supervision and meet the definition.
• A better approach. Treat commissioning, referral arrangements and letters of support as evidence of need and local fit, not as conditions of entitlement. Work with commissioning and housing options colleagues (DWP guidance, paras 149 and 209).
• References: Chapter 13, 13.6.

Example 8: the same scheme documents with every claim

“Please provide the landlord’s constitution, accounts, lease and service description with this new claim.”

• The problem. Where the council already holds these on its scheme file, asking again is not “reasonably required”. Under Kerr, information the council can find for itself should not count against the claimant (para 63).
• A better approach. Keep a scheme file, ask for scheme-level evidence once, and review it annually or on change. Ask only for what has changed.
• References: Chapter 12, 12.2; Chapter 13.

Example 9: a blanket policy against lease-based schemes

“The council does not accept that lease-based schemes can be exempt accommodation.”

• The problem. Lease-based provision is lawful. A leaseholder landlord provides the accommodation (Chorley BC v IT [2009] UKUT 107 (AAC)). The concerns are about how the model is used, not the model itself (FYE v Middlesbrough City Council and GPZ v Sunderland City Council [2026] UKUT 157 (AAC), para 11). Each case must be considered on its own facts (DWP guidance, para 210).
• A better approach. Examine the lease terms, connected parties and rent setting, and look for the warning signs in Chapter 11 (11.3).
• References: Chapter 5, 5.3; Chapter 11; Chapter 13, 13.2.

Example 10: comparing the cost of support with the Housing Benefit at stake

“The support costs £10 a week but exempt status would increase Housing Benefit by £150 a week, so the support is minimal.”

• The problem. “The legislation does not require or permit any such comparison” (Bristol CC v AW, para 32). A low support charge does not show that support is minimal (para 31; CH/1289/2007, para 20).
• A better approach. Assess whether the support makes a real difference to the claimant’s ability to live in the property. Consider the reasonableness of the rent separately (Chapter 10).
• References: Chapter 8, 8.2; Chapter 10.

Example 11: suspending without the proper notice

“Your tenant’s benefit has been suspended because you have not provided the information we asked for. It will be cancelled if we do not hear from you within a month.”

• The problem. A suspension for failure to provide information needs a notice under regulation 13(3), and entitlement can only end after the regulation 13(4) period has run, and never where payment was suspended only in part (regulation 14). The request must have reached the person and identified what was needed (CH/1764/2008, paras 14, 24 and 26).
• A better approach. Check that the request was received and is clear. Send a proper regulation 13(3) notice. Consider suspending only the part of the award in dispute (regulation 11).
• References: Chapter 12, 12.5.

Example 12: requests for commissioning or regulatory purposes under a Housing Benefit heading

“As part of the Housing Benefit review, please provide your safeguarding policy, staff training matrix, outcomes framework, and complaints log.”

• The problem. Some of this may be relevant, for example, training where staff qualifications are in issue (DWP guidance, para 154). But much of it serves commissioning, contract monitoring or licensing purposes, not entitlement.
• A better approach. Say which entitlement question each item answers. Request other information through the appropriate commissioning or licensing route.
• References: Chapter 12, 12.1 and 12.3.

16.3 Points at issue: how to resolve them through dialogue

Where real disagreements arise. Some questions do not have a single right answer and call for judgment:

• whether particular IHM activities go beyond general needs management for this tenant group
• how to apportion mixed charges between eligible and ineligible services
• whether a particular claimant has a real prospect of needing the support available
• whether a rent is unreasonably high compared with suitable alternative accommodation
• whether lease terms or connected parties give cause for concern
• how often scheme evidence should be reviewed

A five-step approach:

1. Identify the question. What entitlement question is in issue: landlord status, exempt status, eligibility, reasonableness or contrivance? Keep them separate (Chapter 7, 7.5; Chapter 9).
2. Agree the law. Use the shared reference points below. Most of the law is settled.
3. Agree the facts. Identify what is agreed and what is not, and what evidence would settle the rest.
4. Narrow the issue. In Allerdale, the parties agreed most of the charge and left only three items for the Upper Tribunal (para 31). That is a good model.
5. Record the outcome. Note what has been agreed on the scheme file, so that future claims start from an agreed position.

Shared reference points:

Issue	Shared reference point	Chapter
Meaning of support	“Advice and assistance … in coping with the practicalities of his life, and in particular his occupation of the property” (Chorley BC v IT, para 71(7))	6
General needs comparator	What a general needs social landlord would do (Chorley BC v IT, para 71(1))	6, 7
More than minimal	Likely to make a real difference to the claimant’s ability to live in the property (Bristol CC v AW, para 31)	8
Hours	“There is no set number of hours” (DWP guidance, para 151)	8, 15
Available support	Real prospect of need more than very occasionally (DW v Oxford CC, para 79)	6, 8
Eligibility of IHM	Activity by activity; housing management judged against this tenant group (Allerdale, paras 25 and 31)	7, 9
Exempt status and eligibility	Separate questions with “fundamentally different purposes” (Allerdale, para 30)	7, 9
Need	Absence of a formal assessment does not mean no need (DWP guidance, para 147)	14
Evidence	“Reasonably required” (regulation 86(1)); a co-operative process (Kerr, para 62)	12
Each case individually	DWP guidance, para 210	12 to 15

If agreement is not possible. Where the sides still disagree, the council should make a clear decision with reasons that engage with the evidence, and the provider and claimant can seek a revision or appeal (Chapter 20). A well-reasoned decision, even one the provider disagrees with, is better for both sides than continued uncertainty.

The guidance

Para	What the guidance says	SHP’s view
134	One month or longer, taking account of complexity and capability.	Agreed.
145 to 148	Needs assessment by a suitably qualified person, which can be the landlord; no assessment does not mean no need; public funding indicates need.	Agreed. Examples 6 and 7.
151	No set number of hours.	Agreed. Examples 1 and 2.
162, 187	Deduction where ineligible support is not separately funded.	Applies to ineligible support actually provided, not as a requirement to provide it. Example 3.
168, 196, 238	Rent breakdown on new claims and rent increases.	Agreed for new schemes and increases. Example 8.
190	Ask for a breakdown of IHM charges.	Agreed.
210	Consider each case individually.	Agreed. Example 9.

Good practice

For councils:

• Test every request against regulation 86: what decision is it for, and is it needed for that decision?
• Avoid thresholds and conditions the law does not contain, such as hours, daily contact, PIP or commissioning.
• Use the scheme file and ask only for what has changed.
• Explain the reason for each request (Chapter 12, 12.4; Appendix 9).
• Where you disagree with a provider, identify the specific point and the evidence that would resolve it.

For providers:

• Answer reasonable requests fully and promptly, even where you think the council already has the information. Say so politely, and point to where it is held.
• Where a request seems to go too far, ask what decision it relates to and offer evidence that answers that question.
• Use the shared reference points in 16.3 rather than general argument.
• Don’t treat a request as hostile. Most requests reflect a genuine need to understand the scheme.

Evidence

Triage for a request. Before sending or answering a request, both sides can ask:

Question	If yes	If no
Does it relate to a specific entitlement question?	Continue	Identify the question first
Is it in the scheme file already?	Use the scheme file	Continue
Does it apply a test the law contains?	Continue	Reframe it as a factor, not a rule
Is it at the right level, scheme or claimant?	Continue	Move it to the right level
Is there a simpler form that would answer the question?	Use the simpler form	Continue
Does the information exist?	Provide it	Explain, and offer an alternative

Finding common ground

Use the examples together. Councils and providers can use this chapter to agree, in advance, which requests are routine and which call for discussion.

Build a local protocol. Combining the scheme file (Chapter 13), the claimant file (Chapter 14), the CSS evidence set (Chapter 15) and the examples here gives a local evidence protocol that both sides can sign up to.

Talk early. A short conversation when a request is first made, or when a provider first has concerns, prevents most disputes from starting.

Key cases and cross-references

Case	Point	Chapter
Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23	Co-operative process; information the council can find for itself	12, 16
CH/1289/2007	No hours minimum; low support charge not decisive; similar tenants	8, 15, 16
Bristol CC v AW [2009] UKUT 109 (AAC)	Real difference test; no comparison of support cost with Housing Benefit	8, 16
DW v Oxford CC [2012] UKUT 52 (AAC) (CH/1344/2011)	Real prospect of need	6, 8, 16
R(A) 2/75	Supervision can be precautionary and anticipatory	6, 16
Allerdale BC v JD and Others [2019] UKUT 304 (AAC)	IHM eligibility activity by activity; narrowing disputes	7, 9, 16
Chorley BC v IT [2009] UKUT 107 (AAC), [2010] AACR 2	Meaning of support; general needs comparator; leaseholder landlord	5, 6, 16
FYE v Middlesbrough CC and GPZ v Sunderland CC [2026] UKUT 157 (AAC)	Lease-based schemes: the model is not the problem	5, 11, 16
CH/1764/2008 [2008] UKUT 13 (AAC)	Requests must be communicated; notice before termination	12, 16
R(I) 12/75	Findings of fact are not rules	4, 16

• Related chapters: Chapter 4 (4.2, rule of thumb thresholds); Chapters 6 to 11 (the legal tests); Chapters 12 to 15 (evidence); Chapter 17 (working in partnership); Chapter 20 (disputes and appeals)
• Appendices: Appendices 4 to 9 (checklists, templates and model letter)

Sources

• Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, regulation 86: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/213/regulation/86
• Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/1002
• DWP guidance for supported housing claims: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-guidance-for-supported-housing-claims/housing-benefit-guidance-for-supported-housing-claims
• Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/23.html
• CH/1289/2007: https://hbinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/caselaw/ch_1289_2007.doc
• Bristol City Council v AW [2009] UKUT 109 (AAC): https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2715/CH%200200%202009-00.doc
• DW v Oxford CC summary: https://www.mrassociates.org/knowledge-base/case-law/dw-v-oxford-cc-2012-ukut-52-aac-ch-1344-2011
• Allerdale BC v JD and Others [2019] UKUT 304 (AAC): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dca92caed915d4e8517d9ab/CH_28_31_34_36_2019-00.pdf
• FYE v Middlesbrough City Council and GPZ v Sunderland City Council [2026] UKUT 157 (AAC): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f216d7b0c3a4023e5d6e63/UA-2024-001199-HB_and_UA-2024-001252-HB.pdf
• CH/1764/2008 [2008] UKUT 13 (AAC): https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2563/CH%201764%202008-00.doc
• SHP, What is “Care, Support or Supervision”, and can it be Funded through Enhanced Housing Benefit?: https://supportedhousing.blog/2025/04/29/what-is-care-support-or-supervision-and-can-it-be-funded-through-enhanced-housing-benefit/

---

Previous: Chapter 15: Evidencing CSS, IHM and Maintenance

Next: Chapter 17: Working in Partnership

Back to contents

This manual is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0: you can share it freely, with credit to SHP, without changes. See Rights and licence. Supported Housing People Ltd, Version 1.0, October 2026.