Chapter 10: Reasonableness of Rent and Rent Restriction

Managing Housing Benefit Claims in Supported Housing | Part B: The Case Law

The law

10.1 The legal framework

Where the rules are. For exempt accommodation, the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 apply with alternative versions of regulations 12, 13 and 13ZA. These are set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2006. They reproduce regulations 11 and 12 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 as they stood before the January 1996 changes (R(H) 4/09, paras 3 and 4; BM, para 17).

How the rules fit together. The order of the decisions matters:

1. Eligible rent. Work out the rent and eligible service charges, removing ineligible charges under Schedule 1 (alternative regulation 12; Chapter 9).
2. Unreasonable payments. Ask whether the dwelling is too large or the rent unreasonably high, and if so decide the reduction (alternative regulation 13).
3. Rent increases. During an award, ask whether an increase is unreasonable (alternative regulation 13ZA).

The DWP guidance follows the same order. It asks councils to get a rent breakdown and deal with service charges first, and then to consider whether “the total rent charged (after the consideration of eligible service charges and deduction of ineligible charges such as support costs) is unreasonably high compared to suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere (not just higher)” (paras 196 and 211).

Why it matters. A dispute about what a charge is for belongs under Schedule 1. A dispute about whether the overall level is too high belongs under regulation 13. Decision letters that mix them up are hard to understand and hard to defend on appeal.

10.2 The two-stage structure of alternative regulation 13(3)

Alternative regulation 13(3) requires the council to consider, “by reference to a determination or re-determination made by a rent officer … or otherwise”, whether:

• (a) the claimant occupies a dwelling larger than is reasonably required by the household, having regard to suitable alternative accommodation occupied by a household of the same size, or
• (b) “the rent payable for his dwelling is unreasonably high by comparison with the rent payable in respect of suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere”.

If so, the council must treat the eligible rent “as reduced by such amount as it considers appropriate having regard in particular to the cost of suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere”.

This gives two stages:

Stage	Question	Who has to show it
1	Is the dwelling too large, or is the rent unreasonably high compared with suitable alternative accommodation?	The council (BM, para 13; CH/3528/2006)
2	If so, what reduction is appropriate?	The council, using its discretion and giving reasons (Mehanne; CH/4970/2002)

Once stage one is met, a reduction must be made, but its amount is a matter of judgment (Mehanne, Lord Hope, para 19; Birmingham, para 40). In shared supported housing the “too large” limb rarely arises. Almost all disputes are about limb (b).

10.3 What “unreasonably high” means

The Court of Appeal test. In Birmingham, Lindblom LJ held that:

“the concept of a rent being ‘unreasonably’ high in regulation 13(3) is that the rent is unreasonably high for the claimant to have to pay, rather than unreasonably high for a particular landlord to charge” (para 39)

An unreasonably high rent is one “higher than the rent one could reasonably be expected to pay” in the “relevant active market in property of the relevant description, type or class”, in the words of Evans LJ in R v East Devon DC HBRB ex p Gibson (1993) 25 HLR 487 (para 39). The comparison “must be objective, realistic and complete” (para 39).

The landlord’s costs. Regulation 13(3)(b) “does not compel the authority to enquire into the circumstances of the landlord” (para 40). The Court of Appeal overturned the Upper Tribunal, which had adjusted comparator rents to allow for the refuge’s lack of subsidy (para 44). Concerns about vulnerable claimants losing suitable accommodation are dealt with through the discretion in regulation 13(3) and the protections in regulation 13(4) and (9), not through the comparison of rents (para 44).

Subsidised comparators and “like with like”. The phrase “like with like” comes from Malcolm v Tweeddale DC HBRB [1994] SLT 1212. Comparators do not have to come from the same type of landlord, and the level of public funding behind them is irrelevant to the comparison (Birmingham, para 44; DWP guidance, para 215). The Court of Appeal did not decide that R v Coventry CC ex p Morgan (also known as ex p Waite, 7 July 1995, unreported) was wrong. It did say that a strict “like with like” approach is “hard to … reconcile” with regulation 13(3)(b), because it tends to exclude rents that belong in a true comparison (para 48).

What this means in practice. “Like with like” now means accommodation of a sufficiently similar type and tenure, suitable for the claimant. It does not mean accommodation run by landlords funded in the same way. What makes a comparator suitable is the claimant’s needs (10.4), not the provider’s business model.

What Birmingham did not decide. The Court of Appeal sent the cases back to the Upper Tribunal to decide whether the rents were in fact unreasonably high and, if so, the appropriate reduction, bearing Mehanne in mind. No published Upper Tribunal decision after the remittal has been found. Birmingham is authority on the approach, not on the outcome for the refuge’s residents.

Purpose. The Court of Appeal in Gibson said that the rules exist to protect public funds, but were not designed to make people homeless. Mehanne makes the same point at stage two (10.7).

10.4 Suitable alternative accommodation

The regulations say only part of what “suitable” means. Alternative regulation 13(9)(a) requires the council to take account of “the nature of the alternative accommodation and the facilities provided having regard to the age and state of health” of the household. Where the claimant has security of tenure, the alternative must offer “security of tenure reasonably equivalent”. These factors “are not exhaustive and must be read against the background of a general, undefined requirement that the accommodation be suitable” (CH/3528/2006, para 34).

The case law adds the following principles.

Principle	Authority
There must be an active market in accommodation of a suitable type, rent and location. The council need not name specific vacant properties.	Gibson; CH/4306/2003; DWP guidance, para 228
If no comparable tenancies exist in the area, the regulation cannot be applied.	ex p Waite (Morgan), as summarised in the DWP HB Guidance Manual, A4.1123
Comparators must be local. Accommodation in a generally cheaper part of the country will not do.	R v Waltham Forest LBC ex p Holder (1997) 29 HLR 71; DWP guidance, para 218
The alternative must be suitable for this claimant, not for people in general. Its nature and facilities must suit the age and health of the household.	Alternative regulation 13(9)(a); CH/3528/2006, para 34; DWP guidance, para 214
The council must consider the claimant’s actual housing needs, including their need for support. It need not look only for landlords who provide support, but it cannot ignore that need.	Aylesbury Vale, paras 53 and 54
The alternative must meet specific needs such as room sizes and wheelchair access.	CH/3528 to 3560/2007; CH/3528/2006, para 41
Accommodation can be available and still unsuitable because of personal circumstances. A claimant who says identified accommodation is unavailable should explain why.	R v Oadby and Wigston BC ex p Dickman (1996) 28 HLR 806
The claimant’s evidence that their present home is particularly suitable must be dealt with.	R v East Devon HBRB ex p Preston (1998) 31 HLR 936
A substantial health risk from moving can be relevant to whether suitable accommodation exists, even though health is not a “relevant factor” under regulation 13(9)(b).	R v Westminster HBRB ex p Pallas [1997] EWHC Admin 818
Security of tenure is relevant to comparators, although its weight may be limited in a particular case.	Alternative regulation 13(9)(a); BM, paras 55 and 56
A social services assessment is not decisive on the claimant’s accommodation needs. The decision-maker decides on all the evidence.	CH/3528/2006, para 35

Supported housing as the comparator. The DWP guidance accepts that general needs housing can be used as a comparator only “if it would be reasonable to expect the claimant to live there”, and that for claimants with high care, support or supervision needs the suitable alternative “may need to be another supported housing scheme” (para 217). It also says that it is “inappropriate to use alternative accommodation that is less suitable for the claimant than their current accommodation” (para 217). SHP agrees. Where a claimant’s needs mean that only supported accommodation is suitable, comparators should be supported schemes for a similar tenant group in the same general area.

What “suitable” does not require. The alternative need not be equivalent to the current accommodation. It can have fewer facilities, as long as it is an appropriate home for the claimant and the missing facilities are not needed (DWP guidance, para 216). The council has to show suitability for the claimant’s needs, not a match with the provider’s service model.

10.5 The council’s burden of proof

Who has to prove what. “The burden of proof before the tribunal was on the Council” (BM, para 13). CH/3528/2006 explains the two burdens. The legal burden decides who wins if the evidence is evenly balanced. The evidential burden means the claimant does not have to answer until the council has made a case that requires an answer (paras 36 and 38).

What is not enough. In CH/3528/2006, the council relied on newspaper advertisements showing, “at most, the number of rooms available and the rent payable” (para 39). That did not create a case for the claimant to answer (paras 39 and 45). The tribunal should have decided that the eligible rent should not be restricted (para 48). R(H) 2/05 is to similar effect.

What is needed. To justify a restriction, the council would have to produce evidence “sufficiently general to show that there is alternative accommodation available at a lower rent while giving sufficient detail to show that is suitable to the claimant’s needs”, and allow for the tribunal assessing those needs differently (CH/3528/2006, para 49).

A large list is not the same as suitable comparators. In Aylesbury Vale, the council identified 251 properties on a checklist of exclusive occupation of one bedroom with shared facilities (para 21). The tribunal was entitled to find the survey not wide-ranging enough, because it did not take account of the claimant’s specific housing needs (para 53).

Reasons. R v Macclesfield BC HBRB ex p Temsamani [1999] EWHC Admin 168 (Forbes J, 24 February 1999) concerned a different restriction power under the 1987 Regulations, but is often cited on evidence. The DWP’s own summary of the case says that councils must establish the relevant facts, have regard to all the circumstances, hold evidence of comparable rents, and be able to explain why the rent is too high and why the restricted figure is appropriate (HB Guidance Manual, A4, Annex B). The court also held that written reasons need not describe each comparator in detail, as long as the details were available and considered.

Tribunals and further evidence. Tribunals are inquisitorial. Because claimants have limited power to find comparators, the tribunal “may have to look to the local authority for any further evidence it needs” (BM, para 59).

The date of the decision. A tribunal cannot take into account circumstances that did not exist when the decision was made. Whether comparators were suitable “can be judged only by the evidence available of the circumstances at that time” (BM, paras 64 and 65). Councils should keep a dated record of the comparators they relied on.

10.6 Protected groups and “reasonable to expect the claimant to move”

Who is protected. Alternative regulation 13(4) applies where the claimant, or a member of the household covered by the regulation:

• has reached the qualifying age for State Pension Credit
• is incapable of work, or has limited capability for work
• is treated as capable of work, or as not having limited capability for work, under the relevant disqualification rules
• is a member of the same household as a child or young person for whom the claimant or partner is responsible

The DWP guidance explains how to verify each group (paras 220 to 226). Receipt of disability benefits such as Personal Independence Payment does not by itself mean a person is incapable of work (para 224).

The extra protection. For protected claimants, “no deduction shall be made … unless suitable cheaper alternative accommodation is available and the authority considers that, taking into account the relevant factors, it is reasonable to expect the claimant to move from his present accommodation” (alternative regulation 13(4)). The council must make sure the claimant could actually obtain the accommodation if they wanted to move (DWP guidance, para 227). Accommodation is not available if there is little or no possibility of the claimant obtaining it, for example because of a deposit they cannot pay (para 229).

The relevant factors. The relevant factors are the effect of a move on the claimant’s prospects of keeping their job and, where a move would mean a change of school, on a child’s education (alternative regulation 13(9)(b); R v Camden HBRB ex p W (1999) 32 HLR 879 (CA); R v Kensington and Chelsea ex p Carney [1996] EWHC Admin 62). Health is not a relevant factor for this purpose, but it remains relevant to whether accommodation is suitable at all (Pallas; 10.4).

Why this matters in supported housing. A large proportion of exempt accommodation tenants have limited capability for work or have reached pension age. For them, a pool of cheaper comparators is not enough. The council has to show that suitable accommodation is actually obtainable and that a move is reasonable. In the protected cases, regulation 13(4) is intended to remove the gap between the eligible rent and the cost of suitable alternative accommodation (Mehanne, Lord Hope, para 21).

Other protections. No deduction can be made:

• for 12 months after the death of a member of the household, if the claimant stays in the same dwelling and the deduction had not already started (alternative regulation 13(5))
• during the first 13 benefit weeks, where the claimant could afford the rent when they took it on and has not had Housing Benefit in the previous 52 weeks (alternative regulation 13(7) and (8); DWP guidance, para 239)

10.7 Stage 2: how large the reduction should be

A discretion, not a formula. The council “was not required to determine the claimant’s eligible rent by simply reducing his excess rent to his alternative rent … the local authority was to exercise a judgment, or, as it is often called, a discretion” (Mehanne, Lord Bingham, para 7(4)). The amount “is not automatic or mandatory” (para 13). The Court of Appeal confirmed this in Birmingham: the council “is not obliged to reduce the eligible rent by the full amount of the difference” (para 43).

What is relevant. The council can consider “matters which could affect the mind of a reasonable and fair-minded person” (Mehanne, Lord Bingham, para 13). These include the claimant’s personal and financial circumstances, the difficulty of finding somewhere else, and the risk of hardship, eviction and homelessness (Mehanne, Lord Hope, paras 25 to 27). Lord Hope said that reading the regulation so as to prevent a council from narrowing the gap where that would prevent homelessness “would seem to be contrary to good sense” (para 27).

The floor. The council must not reduce the eligible rent below the cost of suitable alternative accommodation (Mehanne, Lord Bingham, para 6; R v Brent LBC ex p Connery [1990] 2 All ER 353; DWP guidance, para 234).

Reasons. CH/4970/2002 “establishes the general principle that the amount of the reduction must be considered and reasons must be given for the decision” (Aylesbury Vale, para 58). In Aylesbury Vale, the council had met £133.57 a week for the same property the year before. A restriction below that figure was, “at first sight”, hard to justify (para 58).

Subsidy. The council can be aware of its financial position, but it cannot restrict a rent on financial grounds alone (HB Guidance Manual, A4.1173). The DWP guidance is clear that councils “must not take the amount of subsidy payable into consideration when considering if a rent is unreasonably high” (para 243).

10.8 Rent increases (alternative regulation 13ZA)

The test. Where the eligible rent increases during an award, the council can restrict the increase if:

• (a) it is “unreasonably high having regard in particular to the level of increases for suitable alternative accommodation”, or
• (b) it takes place less than 12 months after the previous increase and is unreasonable given the time since that increase (alternative regulation 13ZA(1))

The council can disallow the full increase or, “if it considers that a lesser increase was reasonable in all the circumstances”, allow that lesser increase.

BM v Cheshire West and Chester Council. BM [2009] UKUT 162 (AAC) (CH/2036/2008, Judge Williams, 19 August 2009) is the leading case. The decision was made by Vale Royal BC, which later became part of Cheshire West and Chester. It held that:

• the increase must be looked at both as a percentage and as a cash sum, compared with the rents payable after the increase in comparator accommodation (para 51)
• the comparison must take into account the base rents and resulting rents of the comparators, not only their percentage increases (paras 52 and 53)
• there is no fixed checklist of relevant factors (CH/2214/2003, as explained in BM)
• where the requested increase is unreasonable, the decision-maker “must go on to take a second decision” on whether a lesser increase is reasonable, identify it, and say why (paras 57 and 58). Simply adopting the council’s 3.5% was not enough.

Improvements and changes in cost. Improvements to the property may justify an increase, and the council decides whether they do (DWP guidance, para 237). When an increase is notified, the council should ask for a new breakdown and compare it with the previous year’s (para 238).

10.9 What goes into the rent

Voids and long-term maintenance. In CH/3528/2006, the claimant’s rent “includes payments for voids and long-term maintenance” (paras 1 and 19). These are part of the rent, tested as part of the whole under regulation 13. They are not picked off as ineligible service charges under Schedule 1.

No standard void rate. In ET v Rossendale BC [2010] UKUT 222 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal explained that CH/3548/2006 did not set 10% as a standard voids allowance, and decided the allowance on the evidence (paras 41 to 43). The right figure depends on the scheme’s actual void history and how it operates.

Lease costs and the core rent. The core rent usually reflects a head lease or the landlord’s property costs. The DWP guidance describes leases of 3 to 10 years, and longer leases of 21 to 99 years, often on full repairing and insuring terms with uplifts linked to the Consumer Price Index (para 127). Bristol City Council’s evidence to the Select Committee shows a real breakdown of an exempt rent of £218.49 a week, with a core property cost of £100, which it described as “inherently reasonable” and good value for money (Bristol City Council, EXA 115).

Service charges. Eligible service charges form part of the eligible rent. Whether a particular charge is eligible, or excessive for the service provided, is a Schedule 1 question (Chapter 9). Whether the overall eligible rent is unreasonably high is a regulation 13 question.

10.10 Rent Officer referrals

When a referral is needed. All exempt accommodation claims must be referred to the Rent Officer unless an exclusion applies (DWP guidance, para 242). Where the landlord is a registered housing association and the council decides the rent is not unreasonably high, no referral is needed (para 243). Where the landlord is not a registered housing association, a referral must be made for subsidy purposes whether or not the rent is reasonable (para 244). The referral must include the net rent after the listed ineligible support charges have been valued and deducted (paras 246 to 250).

What the determination does. The determination sets subsidy. It “should therefore give the local authority a starting point” for applying regulation 13 (Aylesbury Vale, para 16). It is not a cap. In old scheme cases, the council cannot restrict to the Rent Officer’s figure unless suitable alternative accommodation is available and it is reasonable to expect the claimant to move (R(H) 4/09, para 5). The council must have regard to the determination, but it is not conclusive (HB Guidance Manual, A4.1122).

How subsidy works. In general, no subsidy is paid on Housing Benefit attributable to rent above the Rent Officer’s determination. The main exception is where the council concludes that it cannot reduce the eligible rent because of alternative regulation 13(4), (5) or (7), or 13ZA. In that case, subsidy is paid at 60% on the excess (HB subsidy guidance manual 2025 to 2026, paras 770 and 771). Bristol’s evidence shows how this works in practice. A council paying £218 a week against a Rent Officer figure of £110 bears £43.20 a week for a protected claimant and £108 for an unprotected one (Bristol City Council, EXA 115).

SHP’s position. The subsidy loss is real and falls on councils, including on well-run commissioned schemes provided by charities that are not registered providers. It is a matter for government to address. It is not a lawful reason to restrict an individual claimant’s rent, and decisions driven by subsidy will not survive an appeal.

10.11 Where rent reasonableness overlaps with exempt status and contrivance

If the accommodation is not exempt. Where the landlord does not provide care, support or supervision to a more than minimal extent, the accommodation is not exempt and the ordinary rent rules apply (R(H) 7/07; R(H) 4/09; Chapters 5 to 8). In R(H) 4/09, the councils restricted to the Rent Officer’s figure on that basis, and the Commissioner upheld their decisions (paras 8, 265 and 267).

If the arrangement is contrived. Where the real concern is that a rent has been inflated to obtain Housing Benefit, for example through head leases, connected companies or circular flows of money, the right question may be contrivance under regulation 9(1)(l), not rent restriction. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed that contrivance can be established by evaluative judgment on the arrangement as a whole (FYE v Middlesbrough City Council and GPZ v Sunderland City Council [2026] UKUT 157 (AAC); Chapter 11).

The rent escalator. Bristol described a “rent escalator”, where “each rent used in an exempt claim agreed by a LA sets a new comparator benchmark against which future claims will be judged” (Bristol City Council, EXA 115). This is a real risk where comparators are drawn only from other exempt rents already in payment. It is one reason why councils should test core property costs against the open market, and why providers should be able to show that their lease costs are at arm’s length.

Use the right tool. Each tool answers a different question:

Concern	Right question	Chapter
The landlord provides little or no support	Is the accommodation exempt?	5 to 8
A charge is for support, care or personal items	Is the service charge eligible under Schedule 1?	9
A charge is too high for the service provided	Is the eligible charge excessive under Schedule 1, para 4?	9
The overall rent is higher than suitable alternatives	Is the rent unreasonably high under alternative regulation 13?	10
The arrangement was set up to take advantage of Housing Benefit	Is the liability contrived under regulation 9(1)(l)?	11

Rent restriction stretched to do the job of another tool tends to fail on appeal, and leaves the underlying problem in place.

The guidance

The DWP guidance covers eligible rent and rent restriction at paras 194 to 250. It is largely consistent with the case law (Chapter 3, 3.2).

Para	What the guidance says	SHP’s view
196	Get a rent breakdown and deal with service charges before considering restriction.	Agreed. The order matters (10.1).
203	Exempt accommodation uses the old scheme rules.	Agreed.
204 to 206	Councils should set local indicators of reasonable rents as triggers for further action. These may vary by type of supported housing and household.	Agreed, provided they are triggers for scrutiny and never caps. A rent above an indicator still needs the full two-stage decision. The “rent caps” in the rent policy statement were written for social rent setting, not for regulation 13, and should be treated as context only.
207 to 209	Councils should collaborate internally, with commissioners and housing options, and with neighbouring councils.	Agreed. This is the best protection against both unreasonably high rents and unnecessary restrictions.
210	Each case must be considered individually.	Agreed (Mehanne).
211	Councils need not consider whether the landlord could provide the accommodation at a lower rent.	Consistent with Birmingham, paras 39 and 40.
213 and 214	Security of tenure must be similar; size, condition and facilities must suit the household’s age and health.	Consistent with alternative regulation 13(9)(a) and BM.
215	The type of landlord and its public funding are irrelevant to comparators.	Consistent with Birmingham, para 44.
216 and 217	The alternative need not be equivalent. General needs housing can be used only if it is reasonable for the claimant to live there; claimants with high needs may need another supported scheme. Less suitable accommodation is inappropriate.	Agreed, and consistent with Aylesbury Vale.
218	Comparisons from outside the area are possible if local ones cannot be made, as long as costs do not differ widely.	Consistent with Holder. Use with care, and explain why local comparisons were not possible.
219	Cheaper suitable accommodation must exist, but need not be available to move into.	Correct for unprotected claimants only. For protected claimants, it must be available (para 227). In supported housing, check protection first.
220 to 233	Protected groups, availability and the relevant factors for moving.	Consistent with alternative regulation 13(4) and (9)(b).
234	The council can restrict by any appropriate amount, but not below the cost of the suitable alternative.	Consistent with Mehanne. The guidance should also say that the amount is a discretion with reasons.
235 to 238	Unreasonable increases; improvements; ask for a new breakdown and compare with last year.	Consistent with BM, which adds that increases must be judged in cash as well as percentage terms.
239	Protections after a death and in the first 13 weeks.	Consistent with alternative regulation 13(5) and (7).
240 and 241	Notify quickly, with reasons and appeal rights.	Agreed. Reasons should cover both stages.
242 to 250	Rent Officer referrals; subsidy must not affect whether a rent is unreasonably high.	Agreed. The determination is a starting point, not a cap (Aylesbury Vale, para 16).

The footnotes to this part of the guidance do not always line up with the text they support. For example, footnote 63, on the floor in para 234, cites regulation 13ZA. Decision-makers should cite the regulations and cases directly.

Good practice

SHP’s position. Councils can and should restrict rents that are genuinely unreasonably high, and the law allows them to. A lawful restriction needs proper evidence of suitable alternatives for this claimant, respect for the protected groups, and a reasoned decision on the amount. Providers cannot answer a valid comparison by pointing to their own costs. They can expect decisions to be evidenced, specific to the claimant and explained.

For councils:

• Deal with service charges under Schedule 1 first. Then ask whether the eligible rent is unreasonably high.
• Record the claimant’s needs, including support needs, before choosing comparators.
• Check whether the claimant is in a protected group. If so, look for comparators that are actually obtainable and decide whether a move is reasonable on the permitted factors.
• Use comparators that are local, current and suitable for this claimant, with enough detail to show why. Advertised asking rents are not enough.
• Where only supported accommodation would be suitable, compare with supported schemes for a similar tenant group, wherever their funding comes from.
• Make the stage two decision expressly. Consider hardship, the risk of homelessness and the rent previously met, and give reasons for the figure chosen.
• Treat the Rent Officer’s determination as a starting point. Never let subsidy drive the decision.
• Keep a dated file of the comparators relied on and the evidence of the claimant’s needs at the date of decision.
• Ask only for information that is reasonably required under regulation 86, and explain why what you hold is not enough (Appendix 9).

For providers:

• Provide a clear rent and service charge build-up, with the basis for each line (Appendix 8). Separate core rent, voids, maintenance, management and eligible services.
• Be able to show that core lease costs are at open-market levels and agreed at arm’s length.
• Base void and maintenance allowances on your actual history, not a standard percentage.
• Give notice of increases in writing, with the cash and percentage change and the cost lines that have changed.
• Keep evidence of your tenant group’s needs. It is relevant to suitability, not only to exempt status.
• Where a restriction looks wrong, ask which comparators were used and why they were thought suitable. Then respond on the law and the evidence.

Evidence

Reasonable evidence for a rent reasonableness decision will usually include:

Evidence	From	Purpose
Rent and service charge build-up	Provider	Separates core rent, voids, maintenance, management and services (DWP guidance, para 196)
Head lease or property cost evidence	Provider	Shows whether the core cost is at open-market level
Void and maintenance history	Provider	Supports the allowances in the rent (ET v Rossendale)
Previous year’s breakdown and explanation of any increase	Provider	Allows the comparison required by BM and para 238
Assessment of the claimant’s needs, including support	Provider, with the claimant’s consent	Defines what accommodation would be suitable (Aylesbury Vale)
Evidence of protected status	Council records, DWP, claimant	Decides whether regulation 13(4) applies
Comparator schedule: address or area, type, facilities, support, tenure, rent, date	Council	Shows an active market in suitable accommodation (CH/3528/2006, para 49)
Evidence that comparators are obtainable	Council	Needed for protected claimants (DWP guidance, para 227)
Rent Officer determination	Council	Starting point and subsidy figure
Record of the stage two reasoning	Council	Shows the discretion was exercised (Mehanne; CH/4970/2002)

Finding common ground

Agree the comparator set in advance. Councils and providers can agree, for each type of scheme, what kinds of accommodation would be suitable for the tenant group and where to look. This takes much of the heat out of individual decisions.

Use one rent build-up format. A shared template, such as Appendix 8, means both sides look at the same figures in the same order. Bristol’s real example shows that a transparent build-up can demonstrate good value as well as expose excess.

Talk before restricting. A council concerned about a rent can raise it with the provider and ask for the build-up and lease evidence before making a decision. Many concerns are resolved at that stage, either by an explanation or by the provider adjusting the rent.

Plan increases together. Providers that give advance notice of increases, with reasons, and councils that respond promptly, avoid most 13ZA disputes.

Keep the tools separate. Agreeing which question is being asked (exempt status, service charges, rent level or contrivance) prevents decisions that fail on appeal and keeps discussion on the evidence.

Key cases and cross-references

Case	Point	Chapter
Birmingham City Council v SS and SA (Roshni intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 1211, [2017] AACR 8	Unreasonably high for the claimant to pay; no need to look into landlord’s costs or funding; discretion on amount	10.3, 10.7
R v Westminster HBRB ex p Mehanne [2001] UKHL 11, [2001] 1 WLR 539	Discretion on the amount; hardship and homelessness relevant; floor at the cost of the alternative	10.7
R v East Devon DC HBRB ex p Gibson (1993) 25 HLR 487	Active market; purpose of the rules	10.3, 10.4
Aylesbury Vale DC v ER [2011] UKUT 160 (AAC) (CH/1961/2010)	Claimant’s actual needs including support; Rent Officer figure a starting point; reasons for amount	10.4, 10.7, 10.10
CH/3528/2006	Burdens of proof; adverts not enough; voids and long-term maintenance are rent	10.5, 10.9
BM v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2009] UKUT 162 (AAC) (CH/2036/2008)	Burden on council; rent increases in cash and percentage terms; lesser increase; date of decision	10.5, 10.8
ET v Rossendale BC [2010] UKUT 222 (AAC) (CH/3677/2008)	No standard void rate	9, 10.9
R v Macclesfield BC HBRB ex p Temsamani [1999] EWHC Admin 168	Evidence of comparables and reasons	10.5
R v Coventry CC ex p Morgan (ex p Waite), 7 July 1995, unreported	Like with like; comparable tenancies must exist	10.3, 10.4
R(H) 4/09	Rent Officer figure not a cap in protected old scheme cases; non-exempt cases	10.10, 10.11
FYE v Middlesbrough City Council and GPZ v Sunderland City Council [2026] UKUT 157 (AAC)	Contrivance by evaluative judgment	10.11, 11

The other cases in this chapter are listed in Appendix 1.

• Related chapters: Chapter 3 (the DWP guidance); Chapters 5 to 8 (exempt status); Chapter 9 (service charges); Chapter 11 (contrivance); Chapter 19 (decisions and notifications); Chapter 20 (appeals)
• Appendices: Appendix 1 (table of cases); Appendix 2 (extracts from the legislation); Appendix 8 (rent and service charge build-up); Appendix 9 (regulation 86 letter)

Sources

• Consequential Provisions Regulations 2006, Schedule 3, paragraph 5 (alternative regulations 13 and 13ZA): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/217/schedule/3/paragraph/5
• DWP guidance for supported housing claims, paras 194 to 250: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-guidance-for-supported-housing-claims/housing-benefit-guidance-for-supported-housing-claims
• DWP HB Guidance Manual, A4 Eligible rent: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7bac56e5274a7202e18aeb/hbgm-a4-eligible-rent.pdf
• HB subsidy guidance manual 2025 to 2026: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-subsidy-guidance-manual-2025-to-2026/housing-benefit-subsidy-guidance-manual-2025-to-2026
• Birmingham City Council v SS and SA [2017] AACR 8: https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j4160/%5B2017%5D%20AACR%208ws.rtf
• Mehanne [2001] UKHL 11: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldjudgmt/jd010308/mehann-1.htm
• Aylesbury Vale DC v ER [2011] UKUT 160 (AAC): https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j3258/CH%201961%202010-00.doc
• BM v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2009] UKUT 162 (AAC): https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2749/CH%202036%202008-00.doc
• CH/3528/2006: https://hbinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/caselaw/ch_3528_2006_01.doc
• R(H) 4/09: https://hbinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/r_h_4_09.rtf
• ET v Rossendale BC [2010] UKUT 222 (AAC): https://hbinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/ch_3677_2008.doc
• Bristol City Council, written evidence to the Exempt Accommodation inquiry (EXA 115): https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/43790/pdf/
• hbinfo, UK courts decisions (including Temsamani): https://hbinfo.org/caselaw_types/uk-courts/

---

Previous: Chapter 9: Eligible and Ineligible Service Charges

Next: Chapter 11: Contrivance and Abuse of the Benefit System

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.