News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Council wins Court of Appeal battle

5:00pm Friday 10th February 2012 in News

Council wins Court of Appeal battle Council wins Court of Appeal battle

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Wirral Council in a case which could have had a significant impact on all local authorities responsible for administering housing benefit payments.

The appeal was brought by the council following an earlier decision that Salisbury Independent Living, a landlord which provides supported living accommodation for people with learning disabilities, had a right to challenge levels of housing benefit paid to its tenants.

The council argued that the landlord had no separate right of appeal to the tenants.

On Thursday, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Wirral Council and also awarded its costs.

Leader of Wirral Council, Cllr Steve Foulkes, said: “This dispute has been ongoing for sometime now and we are very pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision.

"We have always felt strongly that our position on this matter was correct and this ruling shows that we were right to stand firm.”

Related links

Comments(33)

MX says...
6:04pm Fri 10 Feb 12

Yay!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Positive thinker says...
6:38pm Fri 10 Feb 12

I wonder how much was at stake? You can be sure of one thing the landlord in
question must have deep pockets soon to be empty deep pockets as the costs that have been awarded will be a large
amount

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

ArdalMcFardle says...
6:53pm Fri 10 Feb 12

Good! but how does WBC get themselves in to such a ruddy mess ? Oh wait I know "Corporate Governance"

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PaulCa says...
10:08am Sat 11 Feb 12

A lot of hard work goes into cases like this. It was all in vain

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
2:18pm Sat 11 Feb 12

This was a famous case in Housing Association circles as it would allow landlords to appeal for Housing Benefit in their own right, if it was never awarded - when people had died or not given the HB department all the documents to get a claim.

The 2nd Tier Tibunal seemed to think that it unfair that someone is eligible for housing benefit and makes a claim but dies, then it wont be paid out.

It seems the ruling was that the scope of the interpretation of the higher tribunal was too great as Housing Associations everywhere would have been making appeals and claims and as such the Court of Appeal was not happy about the financial impact across the country.

From the Wirral Leaks site it seems that the court of appeal was just part of £3.1 million claims on unpaid housing benefit. No doubt some claims or appeals have been struck out but the rest remain for a matter of millions.

This is very similar to another story in 2008 where WBC had to admit liability of £3,100,000 in unpaid rent to this landlord - it is still on the echo website.

The tribunals service say the landlord recently took WBC to 1st Tier Tribunal as WBC had restricted their rent awards accusing them of not being a not for profit company. The landlord won. WBC lost.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PaulCa says...
2:29pm Sat 11 Feb 12

Whatever the ruling, the public will ultimately lose. Councils and / or "care providers" / people in robes calling themselves judges and lawyers don't EVER act in the interests of tenants or the public - and that's a truth, without exception.

We as the public bear witness to two a sickening sideshow of corporate-interest-m
oney-driven rogues picking over a carcass like vultures.

Any mention of dead claimants only ADDS to the distasteful metaphor.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
2:58pm Sat 11 Feb 12

I have to agree with you on many points. When councils act as corporate bullies in making rash, unfair decisions and then bully people through litigation to challenge their decisions - puts the common resident at an extreme disadvantage. The council has bottomless pockets to throw at legal expenses and WBC have impunity to answer to the people whom it squanders their taxes on legal expenses.

The cost for going to the court of appeal must be 20-30k.

It seems that this landlord is trying to provide accommodation to people with a learning disability, so it seems not only does DASS provide them with a terrible service and financially abuse them.. WBC also wont pay for their rent.

Hard times for the disabled on the Wirral.

Wonder what the new tier of management will cost and take funds away from front line services...

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Positive thinker says...
6:17pm Sat 11 Feb 12

20 to 30k try 200 to 300k

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PaulCa says...
6:22pm Sat 11 Feb 12

If ONE top lawyer 'commands' £750 to £1,000 per hour (likely) then I'm with PT.

There'll be a whole horde of professional 'concerned and interested parties' who will have been counting the days down to this case and will be claiming their piece of the action.

All in the interests of the vulnerable people who can't fight for themselves, of course.....

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
7:22pm Sat 11 Feb 12

As its cold and miserable outside I am going to find out as much as I can about this case because I really can't believe what I'm reading.
Claiming rent for people who have died?.
Q: How low can you go?
A: Six feet under (apparently).

A whole new meaning to the phrase "deep pockets".

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

ArdalMcFardle says...
8:05pm Sat 11 Feb 12

Or indeed the phrase "there's no pockets in shrouds"

Why would anybody pay out when somebody has died , have I missed something ?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
8:50pm Sat 11 Feb 12

The ruling seemed to be around hostels and tenants who use services for short periods of time. So they may use a hostel or short term accommodation.. make claims but HB wont pay out without birth certificates etc and bank account details regarding savings... so if the person moves on, disappears or dies then the landlord wanted to be able to appeal that they be paid - as the person was there, was eligible, but did not get paid for their claim.. which may be months outstanding. Think the law is 6 months. The appeal was that if the person dies who is going to pay the landlord... as the rent was liable from Housing Benefit... but as soon as a person dies the claim stops. If a person disappears - such as homeless people or transient folk... then the landlord wanted to appeal... but now wont be able to and HB keep the money attached to the claim. Or that is how I understand it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
9:33pm Sat 11 Feb 12

Ive been finding out about the case in the interim and that's not my understanding of the case.......and what's more it would seem there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye.
Indeed enough to make your eyes water and a grown man cry.

Reputable landlords would surely have something built in their business model to cover eventualities you have outlined above to cover voids etc;.

Housing Benefits staff seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I can imagine the response if we were to hear that they were handing over money to landlords who hadn't provided the necessary information.

Forgive me if I'm out of touch with the PC brigade but can Mr.Sheff please explain the term " Transient Folk"? - Is Roger Whittaker on tour?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
10:16pm Sat 11 Feb 12

Haha. People who move a lot! Im not familiar with Roger Whittaker... but after listening to 'I am a small voice' on his greatest hits album I am soon to be an avid fan.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
10:30pm Sat 11 Feb 12

I think that even the late Michael Jackson might have baulked at the mawkishness of that particular song.

Lets sort out the Wirral before we move onto saving mankind.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
11:12pm Sat 11 Feb 12

Here here.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

TheLooseCannon says...
11:52am Sun 12 Feb 12

PeteSheffield, it's the same £3.1m as in 2008. It does NOT concern short term tenancies or hostels.

MX, it centres around why tenants with learning disabilities were paying "rent" to the landlord when WBC was paying not only rent as housing benefit, but many other benefits as well.

Another interesting question which has not been answered is what exactly tenants got for the £648+ per week the landlord was charging?

This was the case that prompted me to hi-jack an Audit and Risk Management Meeting some years ago.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PaulCa says...
11:24am Mon 13 Feb 12

SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT POUNDS? Presumably for bargain basement accommodation?

That is absolutely S C A N D A L O U S

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Natasha Eubank says...
1:17pm Mon 13 Feb 12

@petesheff - Peter, this does not refer to hostels or other short-stay specialist accommodation.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
8:18pm Mon 13 Feb 12

Thats a bit steep! Although it does mention THB somewhere which was for rent and care way back when.

Some more digging said that THB over the water was well over £1000 a week and more in some places.

Thanks for the info Natasha. I have read more and it seems all about Landlords being able to appeal decisions in their own right without the people claiming.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Natasha Eubank says...
9:26am Tue 14 Feb 12

@PeteSheff - THB - Transitional Housing Benefit was the precursor to the Supporting People Grant - It was payment for rent/general counselling & support. Went the way of the Dodo in 2003 - Replaced by SP contractual framework - Yes, Liverpool had some of the highest THB rates in the Northwest, but these didn't stay that way once SP was introduced. At Wirral, the SP Team sits within the Regeneration Department and has, from what I hear, been a very successful programme challenging the likes of Service Providers 1,2 and 3 although apparently without the support of their colleagues in DASS.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
4:28pm Tue 14 Feb 12

Oh yes and wasn't there a headline on the front of the Echo ("Wasters" if I remember rightly) when an external body had to be brought in to do something about the unholy mess that
had been made "over the water" in agreeing to such unwarranted and inflated waste of public money.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

TheLooseCannon says...
4:46am Wed 15 Feb 12

PaulCa wrote:
SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY EIGHT POUNDS? Presumably for bargain basement accommodation?

That is absolutely S C A N D A L O U S
To be fair it wasn't bargain basement accommodation, PaulCa, but it was just a small lounge, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom.

The "rent" paid by tenants was not the same for all of them. The "rent" amounted to every penny the tenant received from whatever source - DLA, SDA, income support, etc., even employment if they were lucky enough to have a little job that paid peanuts.

All tenants were left with just £70 per week to buy food, clothes, comics, DVDs, CDs, entertainment, hobbies, holidays, etc.

As with West Wirral, the "rent" taken from the tenants bore no relationship to their needs, only to their income.

Then there were the dodgy bank accounts, the forged signatures, the over-claiming of benefits ... you get the picture?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PaulCa says...
9:30am Wed 15 Feb 12

Yes I do.

The tenants were vulnerable, innocent pawns in a sick and twisted process.

One which made a few people very rich under a false flag with the legend 'not for profit'.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

TheLooseCannon says...
1:06pm Wed 15 Feb 12

PaulCa wrote:
Yes I do.

The tenants were vulnerable, innocent pawns in a sick and twisted process.

One which made a few people very rich under a false flag with the legend 'not for profit'.
Give that man a coconut! Isn't it amazing that these "caring organisations" only rip off those people who can't stand up for themselves? I don't know how they can sleep soundly in their luxurious beds

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
9:01pm Wed 15 Feb 12

How can an organisation get away with pretending to be not for profit?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
9:10pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Looks like care is expensive across the board, the threatened to be closed respite centres are all £1100 a week to stay at. Wonder what the food is like?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

TheLooseCannon says...
9:12pm Wed 15 Feb 12

PeteSheff wrote:
How can an organisation get away with pretending to be not for profit?
Very good question! Answers on a postcard please!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
9:39pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Spill the beans!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
10:10pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Stop teasing Pete I'm sure you can tell us how its done!.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
10:17pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Pete can you forward an ickle photo so when I compile an illustrated dictionary I can have a picture of you next to D for Disengenuous!.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PeteSheff says...
10:32pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Use a pic of Dave Lee Travis.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

MX says...
10:36am Thu 16 Feb 12

We've already got him under H for Hairy Cornflake.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular