Managing Housing Benefit Claims in Supported Housing | Part D: Process and Practice
In brief
- Most disputes in supported housing claims come from misunderstanding, delay and a lack of contact, not bad faith. Partnership working prevents most of them.
- There is no general statutory duty on a Housing Benefit team to consult providers. But decision making is “a co-operative process of investigation” (Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23, para 62), and the DWP guidance describes collaboration with commissioning and housing options as “essential” (para 209).
- The best time to engage is before a scheme opens. An early conversation about the landlord, the lease, the service and the rent costs far less than a dispute after claims are made.
- A local protocol between Housing Benefit, commissioning, housing options and providers sets out who does what, what evidence is expected and how disagreements are resolved.
- Named contacts, a provider forum and a clear escalation route keep problems small. They do not replace the statutory rights to a revision and an appeal.
- Under the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, councils must publish a supported housing strategy, and the government plans to link licensing to Housing Benefit. Housing Benefit teams and providers should be part of that work now.
- SHP’s position: partnership is not a soft option. It is the most efficient way for councils to protect public money and for providers to sustain good schemes, and it is the best way to protect tenants.
The law
A co-operative process. In Kerr, the House of Lords described benefit decision making as “a co-operative process of investigation in which both the claimant and the department play their part” (para 62). The council knows what it needs and should ask for it. The claimant, usually through the provider, should supply what they reasonably can (Chapter 12). Partnership working applies that principle at scheme level.
Information must be reasonably required. A protocol cannot extend what the council can require. Requests must still meet the test in regulation 86(1) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (Chapter 12, 12.1). A protocol can make requests clearer, earlier and more consistent.
Each claim is decided on its own facts. A protocol, a scheme review or an informal indication before a scheme opens is not a decision on entitlement and cannot bind the council on a later claim (DWP guidance, para 210). It can reduce risk on both sides by settling in advance what the council will want to see.
Statutory rights are unchanged. Informal resolution does not stop the time limits for asking for a revision or appealing (Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001; Chapter 20). An escalation route should run alongside those rights, not in place of them.
Data protection. Sharing personal data between Housing Benefit, other council teams and providers must have a lawful basis and be limited to what is necessary (Chapter 12, 12.6). A protocol should say what is shared, why and how.
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.
- Section 2: each local housing authority in England must review the supported exempt accommodation in its district and publish a supported housing strategy by a date set in regulations (the government plans this to be 31 March 2027) and then every five years. The strategy must assess current supply and the likely need over five years. The social services authority must give the housing authority reasonable assistance, and both must have regard to the strategy (legislation.gov.uk).
- Section 7: in exercising licensing functions, a local housing authority must have regard to the National Supported Housing Standards and to guidance (legislation.gov.uk).
- Section 10: the Secretary of State may make regulations on sharing information about supported exempt accommodation between local housing authorities, registered providers, the Regulator of Social Housing and the Secretary of State, within data protection law (legislation.gov.uk).
17.0 Why non-adversarial working gets better outcomes
For tenants. Delays and disputes leave tenants in arrears, anxious about their homes, and sometimes evicted. Most supported housing tenants cannot manage a dispute about their own claim. A working relationship between the council and the provider protects them.
For councils. Partnership gives the council an understanding of its local supported housing market that it cannot get from claim forms alone. The DWP guidance says collaboration with commissioning and housing options “gives LAs greater control and understanding of their local supported housing sector and improves ways of working and consistency in decision making” (para 209). It also helps councils identify the arrangements that need close scrutiny, which in SHP’s experience involve a significant number of often property and/or investor-led landlords.
For providers. Providers that engage early and openly spend less time on repeated requests, are paid sooner and can plan with more confidence. A council that understands a scheme is less likely to misread it.
What partnership is not. It is not an agreement to stop scrutinising claims, or to accept a decision that is wrong. Councils must still apply the law, and providers and tenants keep their rights of challenge. Partnership means doing both openly, with reasons, and starting dialogue early when the two sides differ.
17.1 Early engagement before a scheme opens
Why it matters. The questions that decide most supported housing claims are scheme-level: who the landlord is, how it holds the property, what it provides, and how the rent is built up (Chapter 13). They can be answered before any tenant moves in.
What early engagement looks like. A provider planning a new scheme, or a significant change to an existing one, contacts the council’s named supported housing contact and shares a draft scheme evidence pack (Chapter 13; Appendix 4). The council reviews it, raises questions, and gives an informal view on what further evidence it will need.
What to cover.
| Topic | Questions to settle early | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Need and fit with local strategy | Is there a need for this provision? How does it fit the local supported housing strategy and any temporary accommodation to exempt accommodation strategy? | SHROA, s.2; Chapter 13 |
| Landlord status | Is the landlord a qualifying, not-for-profit body? | Chapter 5 |
| Property and lease | Who owns the property? Are there connected parties? Is the lease rent reasonable? | Chapters 5 and 11 |
| Service | What care, support or supervision will be provided, by whom, and to which tenant group? | Chapters 6 to 8 |
| Referrals | How will tenants be referred and assessed? Does the scheme work within the council’s referrals framework? | Chapter 14 |
| Rent and service charges | How is the rent built up? Which elements are eligible? | Chapters 9 and 10; Appendix 8 |
| Commissioning and funding | Is any support commissioned? How is any ineligible support funded? | Chapter 13 |
| Property standards | What compliance checks are in place? | Chapter 13 |
Referrals. Early engagement is the right time to agree how tenants will be referred. Referrals from housing options are appropriate for homeless people with additional needs, especially where the council has agreed a strategy for moving households from temporary accommodation into supported exempt accommodation. Self-referrals can be legitimate in emergencies and where a “hard to reach” group will not engage with statutory services. SHP’s position is that they should only be used by providers working within a council-approved referrals framework (Chapter 14).
The limits of an early view. An early view is not a decision. Entitlement is decided claim by claim, on the evidence at the time (DWP guidance, para 210). The council should say so, and the provider should not treat an early view as a guarantee. But where the scheme opens as described, the council should not reopen points it has already accepted without a reason.
17.2 Local protocols between Housing Benefit, commissioning, housing and providers
Why a protocol. Housing Benefit, commissioning, housing options, homelessness, adult social care, and children’s services often each work with the same provider without knowing what the others have agreed. The National Statement of Expectations recommends that councils “consider implementing oversight arrangements to support joined up working between partners”, and that “all relevant teams (including across upper and lower tiers) are aware of plans to commission and deliver supported housing” (National Statement of Expectations). A local protocol puts that into practice.
Who should be involved. At a minimum, Housing Benefit, commissioning and housing options. In two-tier areas, the county council’s adult social care and commissioning teams should be involved too (DWP guidance, paras 149 and 209). Providers should be consulted on the draft and invited to sign up to it.
What a protocol should contain. Appendix 12 provides a model, and Appendix 13 a data sharing agreement template.
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Purpose and principles | Shared aim of good decisions, protection of tenants and value for money; non-adversarial working |
| Roles | What each council team and the provider is responsible for |
| Scheme evidence | The scheme evidence pack, the scheme file and the annual review (Chapter 13) |
| Claimant evidence | Core claimant documents and the proportionate form expected (Chapter 14) |
| Referrals | The council-approved referrals framework, including emergency and self-referral routes |
| Timescales | Target times for requests, responses and decisions |
| Information sharing | What personal data is shared, the lawful basis, and how it is held and deleted |
| Contacts | Named contacts on each side |
| Escalation | Steps for resolving a disagreement, alongside statutory rights (17.3) |
| Review | Annual review of the protocol |
Commissioning information. Commissioning teams often hold information the Housing Benefit team needs, such as how support is funded and what a commissioned service provides. The DWP guidance says Housing Benefit teams may be able to source funding information from the commissioning team (para 160), and should work with commissioning teams and providers to establish a reasonable cost for care, support or supervision (para 165). A protocol should make that routine, so that the council does not ask the provider for information it already holds (Kerr, para 63).
What a protocol cannot do. It cannot add conditions of entitlement that the law does not contain, such as a minimum number of support hours or a requirement that every scheme is commissioned (Chapter 16). Nor can it bind the council on a particular claim.
17.3 Named contacts, provider forums and escalation routes
Named contacts. Each side should name a contact for supported housing claims, with a deputy. On the council side, this is ideally a specialist officer or small team, which the DWP guidance supports through internal and external collaboration and the sharing of good practice (para 207). On the provider side, it is someone who knows the schemes and can answer for them.
Provider forums. A regular forum, perhaps quarterly, lets the council explain its approach, share changes in law and guidance, and hear common problems. It is also a good place to agree templates, such as the scheme evidence pack and the rent build-up (Appendices 4 and 8). A forum is for general issues. Individual claims and personal data should be dealt with separately.
An escalation route. Most disagreements can be resolved by the people dealing with the claim. Where they cannot, a simple route helps:
- Officer to officer. The named contacts discuss the specific point and the evidence, using the shared reference points in Chapter 16 (16.3).
- Team leader or specialist review. A more senior officer looks at the point with the provider’s manager.
- Service manager meeting. The Housing Benefit manager and the provider’s senior manager meet, with commissioning or housing colleagues where relevant.
- Formal routes. Where the point is still not agreed, the council makes or confirms its decision with reasons, and the claimant or provider can ask for a revision or appeal (Chapter 20).
Keep the time limits in view. Informal discussion must not cause anyone to miss a statutory time limit. Where a decision has been made and discussion is continuing, the provider or claimant should ask for a revision within time, and say that discussions are ongoing.
Record the outcome. Note on the scheme file what was agreed and why, so the same point is not argued again on the next claim.
17.4 Joining up with SHROA, NSHS and licensing duties
Supported housing strategies. The duty to review supported exempt accommodation and publish a strategy has been in force since 29 August 2023, with the first deadline to be set in regulations (legislation.gov.uk). Housing Benefit data is one of the best sources of information on local supply: which schemes exist, who runs them, how many tenants they house and what the rents are. Housing Benefit teams should contribute to the review, and providers should engage with it.
National Supported Housing Standards and licensing. The government has confirmed that the National Supported Housing Standards will underpin licensing, and that Housing Benefit will be linked to licensing, with a phased approach and safeguards for residents (MHCLG government response). The detailed regulations are still to come.
Until the regime is in force. Housing Benefit decisions continue to be made under the existing law. The National Supported Housing Standards and licensing are not yet conditions of Housing Benefit entitlement, and Housing Benefit teams should not apply them as if they were (Chapter 13). But councils and providers can prepare now:
- Councils: make sure the Housing Benefit team, the strategy lead and the future licensing team share information on schemes and providers, within data protection law; and plan how a licensing decision will feed into Housing Benefit.
- Providers: review schemes against the National Supported Housing Standards; keep property compliance records in order; and keep the scheme evidence pack up to date, since much of it will also support a licence application.
Information sharing. Regulations under section 10 of the Act may set out how information about supported exempt accommodation is shared between councils, registered providers, the Regulator of Social Housing and the Secretary of State (legislation.gov.uk). Until then, sharing between teams relies on existing data protection law and the council’s own powers (Chapter 12, 12.6).
[Placeholder: update this section when the licensing regulations, the National Supported Housing Standards and any section 10 information sharing regulations come into force.]
The guidance
| Para | What the guidance says | SHP’s view |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Councils have a role in the strategic planning, commissioning and monitoring of supported housing | Agreed. Housing Benefit is one part of that role |
| 149 | Housing Benefit teams should work with stakeholders in their council and county council to monitor referrals and needs assessment | Agreed. A council-approved referrals framework is the best way to do it |
| 160 | Funding information may be available from the commissioning team | Agreed. Use it before asking the provider |
| 165 | Work with commissioning teams and providers to establish a reasonable cost for care, support or supervision | Agreed, provided it is not used as a rule on support hours or cost (Chapter 16, Example 10) |
| 207 | Use internal and external collaboration and share good practice | Agreed |
| 209 | Collaboration with commissioning and housing options is “essential” | Agreed |
| 210 | Each case must be considered individually | Agreed. A protocol supports decisions, it does not replace them |
Good practice
For councils:
- Name a specialist contact or team for supported housing claims.
- Offer providers an early conversation before a scheme opens, and record what is agreed.
- Agree a local protocol with commissioning, housing options and, in two-tier areas, the county council, and consult providers on it.
- Use commissioning information before asking providers for it.
- Run a regular provider forum.
- Offer a clear escalation route, and make sure it never delays a decision or a statutory time limit.
- Contribute Housing Benefit data to the supported housing strategy review.
For providers:
- Engage with the council before opening a scheme or changing one significantly.
- Share a complete scheme evidence pack, and keep it up to date.
- Work within the council’s referrals framework.
- Name a contact who can answer for each scheme.
- Raise concerns early and specifically, and use the escalation route before appealing, while keeping to the time limits.
- Take part in provider forums and the supported housing strategy review.
Evidence
A record of partnership. A short scheme file note, kept by the council and shared with the provider, should record:
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Early engagement | Date, who attended, evidence reviewed, points agreed and points outstanding |
| Protocol sign-up | Date the provider signed up to the local protocol |
| Agreed positions | Points on the scheme agreed through discussion or escalation, with reasons |
| Review dates | Next annual scheme review |
This is not a new evidence requirement. It is a record that saves both sides from repeating work.
Finding common ground
Start from the same law. Disagreements are easier to resolve when both sides use the same reference points (Chapter 16, 16.3). A local protocol can adopt this manual, or parts of it, as an agreed starting point.
Talk before writing. A phone call or short meeting resolves many issues faster than an exchange of letters.
Separate the scheme from the claim. Settle scheme-level questions once, at scheme level. Individual claims then turn only on the tenant’s own circumstances.
Share the aim. Councils and providers both want good-quality supported housing, fairly funded, for people who need it. Starting from that aim makes the detail easier to agree.
Key cases and cross-references
| Case or provision | Point | Chapter |
|---|---|---|
| Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23 | Co-operative process; council should use information it can find for itself | 12, 16, 17 |
| Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, reg 86 | Information must be reasonably required | 12, 17 |
| Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, ss.2, 7 and 10 | Strategies, licensing functions, information sharing | 1, 17 |
| DWP guidance, paras 149, 160, 165, 207, 209 and 210 | Joint working; each case decided individually | 3, 17 |
- Related chapters: Chapter 1 (1.5, SHROA); Chapter 12 (proportionate evidence and data protection); Chapter 13 (scheme evidence); Chapter 14 (referrals); Chapter 16 (reasonable requests and dialogue); Chapter 20 (disputes and appeals)
- Appendices: Appendix 4 (scheme checklist); Appendix 8 (rent build-up); Appendix 12 (model local protocol); Appendix 13 (data sharing agreement)
Sources
- Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/23.html
- 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
- Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, section 2: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/26/section/2
- Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, section 7: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/26/section/7
- Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, section 10: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/26/section/10
- 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
- Supported housing: National Statement of Expectations: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supported-housing-national-statement-of-expectations/supported-housing-national-statement-of-expectations
- MHCLG, Supported housing regulation consultation: government response: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supported-housing-regulation-consultation/outcome/supported-housing-regulation-consultation-government-response
Previous: Chapter 16: Reasonable and Unreasonable Requests: Worked Examples
Next: Chapter 18: The Claim Lifecycle
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.