Managing Housing Benefit Claims in Supported Housing | Part E: Tools and Appendices
This table lists every court and tribunal decision cited in Chapters 1 to 22, grouped by topic. For each case, it gives the citation (linked to a published copy of the decision where one is available), the principle for which this manual relies on it, the chapters where it is discussed, and any SHP analysis of it on supportedhousing.blog. The principles are short summaries. Read the chapter, and where it matters, the decision itself, before relying on a case.
Status of decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court, House of Lords and Court of Appeal bind the tribunals and councils. Reported decisions of the Upper Tribunal and Social Security Commissioners (marked R(H), R(IS), R(A), R(I) or R(S), or with an AACR reference), and decisions of three-judge panels or Tribunals of Commissioners, carry particular weight. Other Upper Tribunal and Commissioners’ decisions bind the First-tier Tribunal and councils on points of law. Chapter 4 explains how to use them.
Older decisions. Many rent cases were decided under earlier rules, some by judicial review of Housing Benefit Review Boards. They remain useful on principle, but should be read with the current regulations (Chapter 10). Some older citations have not been re-checked against the full text for this draft, and these are marked.
Binding effect and use of case law
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R(I) 12/75 | Reported Commissioners’ decision | Binding effect of decisions; which to follow where decisions conflict; principle distinguished from findings of fact | 4, 8 and 16 | None yet |
| Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MH | [2009] UKUT 4 (AAC) | Binding effect of Upper Tribunal decisions; three-judge panels to be preferred | 4 | None yet |
| Sharratt v London Central Bus Co Ltd | [2003] EWCA Civ 718 | The law does not concern itself with trifling matters (the de minimis principle applied in R(H) 7/07) | 8 | None yet |
Qualifying landlord and who provides the accommodation and support
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R(H) 2/07 | CH/423/2006 | Supported accommodation helps occupants cope with the practicalities of day-to-day living; third-party support must be engaged by the landlord; a joint venture is not enough | 5, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 18 | B2 |
| East Hertfordshire DC v KT | [2009] UKUT 12 (AAC) (CH/2726/2008) | Accommodation is provided by whoever has the right to possession and the rent; arranging it is not providing it | 5 | None yet |
| CH/760/2008 | Commissioner’s decision | Support given independently of the landlord is not given on its behalf | 5 | None yet |
| Wirral BC v MF (Wirral BC v Furlong) | [2013] UKUT 291 (AAC), [2014] AACR 12 | The not-for-profit test applies to the landlord; genuine commercial arrangements with connected third parties do not defeat it | 5, 11 and 13 | None yet |
| Wychavon District Council v EM | [2012] UKUT 12 (AAC) | A claimant lacking capacity can be liable for necessary accommodation without a contract | 14 | None yet |
Care, support or supervision, IHM and more than minimal
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R(A) 2/75 | Reported decision | Supervision can be precautionary or anticipatory | 4, 6, 15 and 16 | B1 |
| R(A) 1/88 | Reported decision | Supervision means being “present on guard” | 4 and 6 | B1 |
| R(H) 7/07 | CH/3811/2006 | More than minimal is the de minimis principle (para 23); the landlord need not be the main support provider (para 21) | 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 | B1, B2, B4, B5 |
| CH/1289/2007 | Commissioner’s decision | Source of the “3 hours a week” practice, which was the council’s own calculation and not a minimum (para 21); a low support charge is not decisive (para 20); the test applies to each dwelling and claimant (paras 27 to 30) | 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 19 | B1, B7 |
| R(H) 6/08 | CH/779/2007 (interim decision, 17 August 2007) | Care, support or supervision must actually be provided; making support available can be support; “on its behalf” means on the landlord’s behalf in providing it | 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 and 15 | B5 |
| R(H) 4/09 | CH/779/2007 and others | Support in the practicalities of everyday living; the prudent landlord test; availability depends on the nature and manner of the support; on rent, no restriction to the rent officer figure in old-rules cases without suitable alternative accommodation | 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 15 | B2, B6 |
| Chorley BC v IT | [2009] UKUT 107 (AAC), [2010] AACR 2 (CH/150/2007) | Meaning of support; repairs and maintenance can be support; a leaseholder landlord provides the accommodation, a nominating council does not | 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15 and 16 | B1, B2, B4 |
| Chorley BC v EM | [2009] UKUT 108 (AAC) (CH/4432/2006) | Arranging works, inspections and property visits can be support | 3, 6, 7 and 15 | B1, B2, B4, B5 |
| Bristol CC v AW | [2009] UKUT 109 (AAC) (CH/200/2009) | The “real difference” test (para 31); no comparison of the support cost with the Housing Benefit at stake (para 32); help with an exempt status appeal does not count (para 49); different minds may differ (para 52) | 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 19 | B1, B2, B4, B5 |
| DW v Oxford CC | [2012] UKUT 52 (AAC) (CH/1344/2011) | What the landlord actually does; availability counts only with a real prospect of need; help with tenant disputes as support | 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16 | B5 |
| MMcF v Sefton BC | [2016] UKUT 403 (AAC) (CH/1286/2016) | What goes beyond usual social housing practice; the evidence to examine; support is not provided unless there is some need for it | 6, 8, 14 and 15 | B5 |
| Allerdale BC v JD and Others | [2019] UKUT 304 (AAC) | No automatic link between eligibility and exempt status; housing management judged against the tenant group; SHP reads the post-2003 exclusion as personal counselling and support to the tenant as a person, so housing-related support and supervision remain eligible; rent collection and routine Housing Benefit help eligible; apportionment and mark-ups | 3, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19 and 20 | B2, B4, B5, B6 |
Service charges
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIS/1460/1995 | Commissioner’s decision | Common sense meaning of “adequate accommodation”; personal needs relevant; housing management varies with the tenant group; apportionment | 9 | None yet |
| Wigan Council’s appeal | [2009] UKUT 28 (AAC) (CH/1615/2008) | A sleep-in room within the tenancy is rent; the tenancy wording governs unless rectification-level evidence shows otherwise | 9 | None yet |
| ET v Rossendale BC | [2010] UKUT 222 (AAC) (CH/3677/2008) | Councils can look behind itemisation; staff time evidence; management of an eligible service is eligible; comparables not a precondition for finding charges excessive; no standard void rate; burden of proof | 9 and 10 | B6 |
| R(IS) 2/07 | Reported decision | Discussed in ET v Rossendale (para 20): without knowing what a service involves, it is often impossible to say whether its charge is eligible or excessive | 9 | None yet |
| Carlisle City Council v SC | [2011] UKUT 480 (AAC) (CH/1827/2010) | Old form of regulation 12 applies in exempt accommodation; support funded elsewhere is not eligible; management and voids mark-ups on ineligible charges are ineligible pro rata | 7 and 9 | None yet |
| JB v Oxford CC; Oxford City Council v Basey | [2011] UKUT 136 (AAC); [2012] EWCA Civ 115 | Broad meaning of “sheltered accommodation”; fuel and cleaning of communal rooms eligible | 9 | None yet |
| Liverpool City Council v NM and WD | [2015] UKUT 532 (AAC), [2016] AACR 19 | Communal water charges in sheltered or supported housing are eligible; apportion communal laundry use | 9 | None yet |
Rent reasonableness and rent restriction
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v East Devon DC HBRB ex p Gibson | (1993) 25 HLR 487 (CA) | Active market test; no need to name specific properties; purpose of the rules | 10 | B6 |
| Malcolm v Tweeddale DC HBRB | [1994] SLT 1212 | Compare like with like | 10 | B6 |
| R v Coventry CC ex p Morgan (ex p Waite) | 7 July 1995, unreported (Collins J) | Like with like; comparable tenancies must exist; doubted but not overruled in Birmingham, para 48 | 10 | None yet |
| R v Oadby and Wigston BC ex p Dickman | (1996) 28 HLR 806 | Available but unsuitable; the claimant must show why accommodation is unavailable | 10 | B6 |
| R v Kensington and Chelsea ex p Carney | [1996] EWHC Admin 62 | Limited factors for deciding whether a move is reasonable | 10 | None yet |
| R v Waltham Forest LBC ex p Holder | (1997) 29 HLR 71 | Comparators must be local | 10 | B6 |
| R v Westminster HBRB ex p Pallas | [1997] EWHC Admin 818 | Health and suitability | 10 | B6 |
| R v East Devon HBRB ex p Preston | (1998) 31 HLR 936 | Deal with evidence that the current home is particularly suitable | 10 | B6 |
| R v Camden HBRB ex p W | (1999) 32 HLR 879 (CA) | The only relevant factors for a move are employment and a child’s schooling | 10 | B6 |
| R v Macclesfield BC HBRB ex p Temsamani | [1999] EWHC Admin 168 | Evidence of comparables and reasons (decided under a different 1987 power) | 10 | None yet |
| R v Brent LBC ex p Connery | [1990] 2 All ER 353, (1989) 22 HLR 40 | No reduction below the cost of suitable alternative accommodation | 10 | B6 |
| R v Westminster HBRB ex p Mehanne | [2001] UKHL 11, [2001] 1 WLR 539 | Discretion over the amount of the reduction; personal circumstances | 4 and 10 | B6 |
| CH/4970/2002 | Commissioner’s decision | Consider the amount of the reduction and give reasons | 10 and 19 | B6 |
| CH/2214/2003 | Commissioner’s decision | No mandatory checklist of factors | 10 | None yet |
| CH/4306/2003 | Commissioner’s decision | Active market evidence | 10 | B6 |
| R(H) 2/05 | Reported decision | The council’s evidence was insufficient | 10 | None yet |
| CH/3528/2006 | Commissioner’s decision | Voids and long-term maintenance are rent; standard of evidence | 10 | B6 |
| CH/3548/2006 | Commissioner’s decision | Voids are fact-specific; there is no standard 10% | 4, 9 and 10 | B6 |
| CH/3528 to 3560/2007 | Commissioner’s decisions | Alternative accommodation must meet specific needs | 10 | B6 |
| BM v Cheshire West and Chester Council | [2009] UKUT 162 (AAC) (CH/2036/2008) | Burden on the council; rent increases in cash and percentage terms; lesser reasonable increase; date of decision; untested evidence | 10, 18 and 20 | B6 |
| Aylesbury Vale DC v ER | [2011] UKUT 160 (AAC) (CH/1961/2010) | Suitability includes the need for support; the rent officer figure is not a cap; reasons for the reduction | 4, 10 and 19 | B6 |
| Birmingham City Council v SS and SA (Roshni intervening) | [2016] EWCA Civ 1211, [2017] AACR 8 | Compare with the market; no inquiry into landlord funding; discretion to soften a reduction | 2, 4 and 10 | B6 |
Contrivance and abuse
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Sheffield HBRB ex p Smith | (1994) 28 HLR 36 | Anti-abuse provisions; look at the arrangement as a whole | 11 | None yet |
| R v Solihull MBC HBRB ex p Simpson | [1995] 1 FLR 140 (CA) | Abuse is not the same as bad faith | 11 | None yet |
| CH/39/2007 (with CH/55/2007 and CH/58/2007); CH/136/2007 | Commissioners’ decisions | Meaning of “take advantage of the scheme” in exempt accommodation | 11 | None yet |
| Salford City Council v PF | [2009] UKUT 150 (AAC) (CH/577/2009 and others) | Abuse required for regulation 9(1)(l); letting to tenants with genuine support needs is not abuse; rents significantly above costs | 11 | None yet |
| FYE v Middlesbrough City Council and GPZ v Sunderland City Council | [2026] UKUT 157 (AAC) | Contrivance under regulation 9(1)(l) in a lease-based scheme, by evaluative judgment on the arrangement as a whole; lead cases; decision-makers need not give evidence | 5, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 20 | B3 |
Evidence, decisions, appeals and overpayments
| Case | Citation | Principle | Chapters | SHP analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R(S) 2/63 | Reported decision, applied in CH/996/2004 | Meaning of good cause for late claims and backdating | 18 | None yet |
| Kerr v Department for Social Development | [2004] UKHL 23 | Benefit decisions are a co-operative process; gaps are determined against the party that has not done what it reasonably could, including the council | 12, 13, 16 and 17 | None yet |
| South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2) | [2004] UKHL 33 | Standard for adequate reasons (para 36); a planning case used as a benchmark | 19 | None yet |
| R(H) 6/06 | Tribunal of Commissioners (CH/4243/2004) | The decision whether, and from whom, to recover an overpayment is not appealable | 21 | None yet |
| CH/1764/2008 | [2008] UKUT 13 (AAC) | An information request must be communicated and identify what is needed; notice needed before termination | 12, 16 and 18 | None yet |
| Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd | [2012] EWCA Civ 84 | A landlord is a person affected only for direct payment and overpayment decisions, but can act for tenants who authorise it | 19 and 20 | None yet |
| NSP v Stoke-on-Trent City Council and AT | [2020] UKUT 311 (AAC) | The regulation 86 duty falls on the claimant, not the landlord; the claimant is always a respondent to a landlord’s appeal | 12 | None yet |
| Capital Housing Association Ltd v London Borough of Ealing and SR | [2025] UKUT 125 (AAC) | Official error overpayment; a landlord that knew the tenant had left could reasonably have realised; recovery from the landlord | 21 | None yet |
| Gateshead Council v Frederick Avery | [2026] UKUT 214 (AAC) | Misleading council information about changes to report can be official error (pension age case) | 21 | None yet |
SHP analysis on supportedhousing.blog
Previous: Chapter 22: Quality Assurance and Monitoring
Next: Appendix 2: Extracts from the Legislation
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.