Managing Housing Benefit Claims in Supported Housing | Part B: The Case Law
In brief
- “Intensive housing management” is not a legal term. It describes the housing management that supported housing landlords carry out, often with greater intensity, beyond the duties of a general needs landlord (DWP guidance, para 189).
- IHM raises three separate questions, and each has its own legal test:
- Exempt status. Does it amount to care, support or supervision, more than minimally? (Chapters 6 and 8)
- Eligibility. Is its cost an eligible service charge, or is it “general counselling or other support services” and ineligible? (Schedule 1, HB Regulations 2006)
- Reasonableness. Is the charge reasonable? (Chapters 9 and 10)
- There is no automatic link between the first two questions. An eligible service can count towards exempt status, and the exclusion of an ineligible charge does not decide exempt status (Allerdale BC v JD and Others [2019] UKUT 304 (AAC), paras 12 and 30).
- What housing management involves “will differ according to the attributes and needs of those being housed” (Allerdale, para 25).
- The label does not decide anything. What matters is what the landlord actually does (DW v Oxford CC [2012] UKUT 52 (AAC)).
- SHP’s position: intensive housing management and maintenance, provided because of tenants’ needs, can be support and supervision in their own right, and can be sufficient on their own for the accommodation to be exempt.
The law
7.1 The difference between IHM, ordinary housing management and CSS
| Ordinary housing management | Intensive housing management and maintenance | Care, support or supervision (CSS) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it is | What any prudent landlord does to manage its property and tenancies | Housing management and maintenance carried out with greater intensity, or in a different way, because of the tenants’ needs | Advice and assistance with the practicalities of life; oversight to prevent harm; care |
| Counts towards exempt status? | No (R(H) 4/09, para 25) | Yes, where it goes beyond general needs social housing management (Chorley BC v IT, para 71; DWP guidance, para 155) | Yes |
| Eligible for HB? | Yes | Yes, including housing-related support and supervision that bear on the accommodation and the tenant’s occupation of it. No, where it is care, counselling or personal support to the tenant (Allerdale) | Care, counselling and personal support are ineligible (Schedule 1). SHP’s view is that housing-related support and supervision are eligible |
IHM sits between the other two columns. It is housing management, so it is usually eligible. And it goes beyond what a general needs landlord does, so it can be support or supervision for the exempt accommodation test.
Repairs and maintenance. Chorley BC v IT is the leading authority on when repairs and maintenance are support (para 71). They are not support where the landlord is only meeting its obligations. They can be where tenants’ needs make those obligations materially more burdensome, or where the landlord goes beyond them because of those needs. Chapter 6 (6.3) covers this in detail.
7.2 IHM is neither automatically support nor automatically excluded: Allerdale
Allerdale BC v JD and Others [2019] UKUT 304 (AAC) was decided by Judge Ward on 8 October 2019. The landlord, Inclusion Housing CIC, housed people with learning disabilities. The council treated part of its Enhanced Housing Management Charge as an ineligible support service.
No automatic link. The Upper Tribunal held:
- It is “conceptually possible for something to constitute ‘exempt accommodation’ whether or not payments include service charges and, if they do, whether the service charges are eligible, partly eligible, or ineligible” (para 12).
- The two provisions have “fundamentally different purposes”. “Care, support or supervision” and “general counselling or other support services” are different phrases, and the word “support” “takes its colour from the phrases of which it forms part” (para 30).
- It is not appropriate to link services that escape exclusion with loss of exempt status. Each “needs to be examined on the evidence” (para 30).
Where the line on eligibility falls: SHP’s position. SHP reads Allerdale as drawing the eligibility line between two kinds of activity:
- Housing management, including housing-related support and supervision: eligible. This is what the landlord does to manage the accommodation, its services and the tenant’s occupation of it. It includes tenancy sustainment, enhanced repairs, property and welfare checks, dispute intervention, help with Housing Benefit, and on-call cover. It remains housing management and stays eligible when it is more intensive because of the tenants’ needs.
- Care, counselling and personal support to the person: ineligible. This includes personal care, counselling and emotional support, life skills, help with benefits other than Housing Benefit, training, education and employment support, medication reminders and family liaison. It falls within “general counselling or other support services” (Schedule 1, para 1(f)).
Why SHP takes that view. The Upper Tribunal held that what housing management involves “will differ according to the attributes and needs of those being housed” (para 25), and judged the disputed items against that particular tenant group (para 31(a)). Rent collection, arrears and liaison with appointees were “a proper part of housing management”, and help with Housing Benefit “a normal part of housing management” (para 31). Housing management is therefore measured against the people being housed, not against a general needs tenancy. That is consistent with SHP’s published view that “care” and “personal support” cannot be funded by Housing Benefit, while housing-related support and supervision bearing on the accommodation can (supportedhousing.blog; supportedhousing.blog).
The 2003 history. The Upper Tribunal explained that from April 2000 to April 2003 a transitional scheme made some general counselling and other support eligible, including help to keep the home safe and secure and to comply with the tenancy, and that this eligibility ended in 2003 (paras 18 to 27). SHP reads that history as concerned with counselling and support services provided to the tenant as a person, the kind of service then moved to Supporting People funding. It did not turn the landlord’s own housing management, delivered more intensively because of the tenants’ needs, into an ineligible support service. Section 7.5 sets out the practical test.
How the Upper Tribunal decided the disputed items. The parties agreed most of the charge. Of the three items left (para 31):
| Service | Decision |
|---|---|
| Rent collection, including chasing arrears and liaising with appointees | Eligible. “A proper part of housing management”, not a support service |
| Advice and help with Housing Benefit claims and other correspondence | Mostly eligible. Help with Housing Benefit “is a normal part of housing management”. Broader work to meet the tenant group’s particular needs was ineligible. Split 3% eligible, 2% ineligible |
| Links with local mental health and disability networks and forums | Mostly ineligible. “Primarily a support service”. Split 1% eligible, 4% ineligible |
Overheads and voids. Where part of a charge is ineligible, the management and voids mark-ups applied to that part are ineligible too, pro rata (paras 37 and 38, following Carlisle City Council v SC [2011] UKUT 480 (AAC)). This matches SHP’s position in Chapter 3 (3.4.3) that overheads take their character from the service they support.
What Allerdale did not decide. The Upper Tribunal did not decide whether the scheme was exempt accommodation and stayed “neutral” on that question (para 30). It is authority on eligibility and on the separation of the two questions. It is not authority that IHM cannot make accommodation exempt.
7.3 Housing management is judged against the tenant group
“It is accepted by both parties that what is involved in housing management will differ according to the attributes and needs of those being housed” (Allerdale, para 25, citing CIS/1460/95). The Upper Tribunal applied that principle in deciding the disputed items: “The proposition that what constitutes housing management has to be looked at in the context of the particular cohort of residents tends to increase the eligible proportion” (para 31(a)).
For the eligibility question, then, the question is what housing management involves for this tenant group. Rent collection that takes more time because tenants need help managing money, or more frequent repairs because of tenants’ needs, remain housing management.
For the exempt status question, the comparison is with general needs social housing (Chorley BC v IT, para 71(1)). The extra housing management that this tenant group needs, compared with general needs tenants, is what can make it support or supervision.
The two tests fit together. The same activity can be housing management for this tenant group, and so eligible, and also go beyond general needs management, and so count towards exempt status.
7.4 Label against substance: IHM that falls short of “more than minimal”
DW v Oxford CC [2012] UKUT 52 (AAC) (CH/1344/2011) is the leading example of IHM that fell short. The landlord had agreed to provide support services and employed a part-time tenant support officer. The Upper Tribunal set aside the tribunal’s decision as wrong in law, but substituted its own decision that the support was not more than minimal.
The decision makes three points that matter for IHM:
- What the landlord actually did. “It cannot in my judgment be enough that the landlord is prepared to provide the support, i.e that it is available to the tenant”, unless “there is a real prospect that the tenant will need it on something more than a very occasional basis”. That question is difficult to answer “without having close regard to what the landlord has actually done” (para 79).
- Tenant disputes. As a general rule, dealing with disputes between tenants is ordinary housing management. But where tenants’ needs make them more likely to be involved in, or more susceptible to, anti-social behaviour, the landlord’s readiness to intervene “would qualify as ‘support'” (para 53).
- Different outcomes. Landlords offering similar services can get different outcomes, depending on evidence of what each actually does and how often (para 78).
A scheme can call its service “intensive housing management”, “enhanced housing management” or “tenancy sustainment”. None of those labels decides the question. The evidence of what is done, for whom and why, does.
The guidance
The DWP guidance deals with IHM at paragraphs 155 and 189 to 193:
- Housing management that goes beyond the normal responsibilities of a general needs social landlord “could be considered support” (para 155). This is consistent with Chorley BC v IT.
- IHM charges “should be scrutinised to ensure they do not cover ineligible charges” (para 189). That is consistent with Allerdale, provided that housing-related support and supervision delivered as housing management are recognised as eligible (7.5).
- Councils should ask for a breakdown of IHM charges and deduct any ineligible or duplicate charges (para 190). This is good practice.
- But paragraph 190 also says: “Where charges relate to services which contribute to the accommodation satisfying the care, support or supervision requirement to be specified accommodation, they must be ineligible.”
SHP’s position on paragraph 190. That last sentence creates the automatic link that Allerdale rejected (para 30). Whether a service is ineligible depends on whether it is “general counselling or other support services” under Schedule 1, judged on the evidence. It does not depend on whether the service also counts towards exempt status. Where an IHM service is housing management for this tenant group, it is eligible, even if it is also the support or supervision that makes the accommodation exempt. Where the guidance and the case law differ, the case law applies (Chapters 3 and 4).
Good practice
7.5 IHM and maintenance alone can be sufficient: SHP’s position
SHP’s position. Intensive housing management and maintenance, provided because of tenants’ needs and beyond what a general needs social landlord would do, are support and supervision. Where they are more than minimal, they are sufficient on their own for the accommodation to be exempt. The provider does not need to show additional, separately funded support that is ineligible for Housing Benefit.
Why. Four points from the case law support this:
- The definition is met by care, support or supervision. Nothing in it requires the support to be of a kind that is ineligible for Housing Benefit (Schedule 3, para 4(10)).
- Housing management and maintenance that go beyond general needs management because of tenants’ needs can be support (Chorley BC v IT, para 71; Chorley BC v EM; DWP guidance, para 155).
- There is no automatic link between eligibility and exempt status, so an eligible service can be the support that makes accommodation exempt (Allerdale, paras 12 and 30).
- Whether it is more than minimal depends on the evidence of what is done, how often, and the difference it makes (Bristol CC v AW [2009] UKUT 109 (AAC); DW v Oxford CC). Chapter 8 covers this.
Where the line falls. Drawing on Allerdale, a practical test is:
- Is the landlord managing the tenancy or the property? For example: collecting rent and dealing with arrears; repairs and maintenance; property safety checks; dealing with nuisance and disputes; lettings and voids; help with Housing Benefit. If so, it is housing management, adjusted for this tenant group, and eligible. This includes housing-related support and supervision, such as tenancy sustainment, enhanced repairs, welfare and property checks, and on-call cover.
- Or is the landlord providing care or personal support to the person? For example: personal care; counselling and emotional support; life skills; budgeting and help with other benefits and general correspondence; training, education and employment; health and wellbeing work; medication reminders; family liaison; participation in external networks. If so, it is ineligible.
Both kinds of activity can count towards exempt status. Only the first is eligible for Housing Benefit.
For councils:
- Ask for a breakdown of IHM charges by activity, with the staff time spent on each.
- Decide eligibility activity by activity, using the Allerdale approach. Don’t disallow the whole charge because it is called “intensive” or because it helps make the accommodation exempt.
- Judge housing management against the needs of this tenant group.
- Where an apportionment is needed, use a reasonable broad-brush approach where the evidence allows, as the Upper Tribunal did in Allerdale.
For providers:
- Break IHM down into activities, and show the staff time spent on each.
- Separate housing management, including housing-related support and supervision, from care, counselling and personal support to the person. Fund the latter from another source, or accept that it is ineligible.
- Don’t use IHM as an umbrella for everything. A charge that mixes eligible and ineligible services invites apportionment, and the mark-ups on the ineligible part will be lost too.
- Be able to show why the tenants need the extra housing management, and what difference it makes.
Evidence
Reasonable evidence for IHM and maintenance will usually include:
| Evidence | Purpose |
|---|---|
| An IHM breakdown: each activity, how often, by whom, and the staff time | Shows what the charge covers, and allows eligibility to be decided activity by activity |
| A comparison with general needs management | Shows what is extra, and why, for the exempt status test |
| A description of the tenant group’s needs | Shows why the extra housing management is needed (Allerdale, para 25) |
| Repairs and maintenance records | Shows frequency and cause of repairs, especially damage linked to tenants’ needs |
| Visit, inspection and intervention logs | Shows what is actually done (DW v Oxford, para 79) |
| The basis for apportioning overheads and voids | Shows how mark-ups are applied to eligible and ineligible elements |
Chapter 13 covers scheme-level evidence and rent build-ups. Chapter 15 covers evidence of CSS, IHM and maintenance in more detail. Appendix 8 provides a template for the IHM breakdown.
Finding common ground
Agree the breakdown first. In Allerdale, the parties agreed the treatment of 85% of the charge between themselves, and the Upper Tribunal only had to decide three small items (para 31). That is a good model. Most IHM disputes can be narrowed to a few activities once there is a clear breakdown.
Keep the questions separate. Agree whether the accommodation is exempt, which services are eligible, and whether the charge is reasonable, as three separate discussions. Mixing them is the most common source of confusion about IHM.
Use the same practical test. Is the landlord managing the tenancy or the property, or providing care or personal support to the person? Councils and providers can usually agree on most activities using that test.
Key cases and cross-references
| Case | Point | Chapter |
|---|---|---|
| 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; eligibility of IHM items; apportionment and mark-ups | 3, 7, 9 |
| Chorley BC v IT [2009] UKUT 107 (AAC), [2010] AACR 2 | When repairs and maintenance are support; general needs comparator | 6, 7 |
| Chorley BC v EM [2009] UKUT 108 (AAC) | Arranging works, inspections and visits as support | 6, 7 |
| R(H) 4/09 | Ordinary property management is not support | 6, 7 |
| DW v Oxford CC [2012] UKUT 52 (AAC) (CH/1344/2011) | What the landlord actually does; availability and real prospect of need; tenant disputes | 6, 7, 8 |
| Carlisle City Council v SC [2011] UKUT 480 (AAC) | Mark-ups on ineligible charges are ineligible pro rata | 7, 9 |
| Bristol CC v AW [2009] UKUT 109 (AAC) | The “real difference” test | 7, 8 |
- Related chapters: Chapter 3 (3.4.1, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4); Chapter 6 (meaning of CSS); Chapter 8 (“more than minimal”); Chapter 9 (eligible and ineligible service charges); Chapter 15 (evidencing CSS, IHM and maintenance)
- Appendices: Appendix 1 (table of cases); Appendix 8 (rent and service charge build-up)
Sources
- 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
- Allerdale on GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/allerdale-bc-v-jd-and-others-by-their-respective-appointees-hb-2019-ukut-304-aac
- DW v Oxford CC summary: https://www.mrassociates.org/knowledge-base/case-law/dw-v-oxford-cc-2012-ukut-52-aac-ch-1344-2011
- Chorley BC v IT summary: https://www.mrassociates.org/knowledge-base/case-law/chorley-bc-v-it-2009-ukut-107-aac-2010-aacr-2-ch-150-2007-final-decision
- 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
- Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Schedule 1: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/213/schedule/1
- SHP, What’s the Difference between Intensive Housing Management and Maintenance and Care, Support or Supervision?: https://supportedhousing.blog/2026/04/14/whats-the-difference-between-intensive-housing-management-and-maintenance-and-care-support-or-supervision/
Previous: Chapter 6: Care, Support or Supervision (CSS): Meaning
Next: Chapter 8: “More Than Minimal”
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.