London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v FJ
[2023] UKUT 203 (AAC)
ZA v London Borough of Barnet
25 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 222 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman was denied housing benefits because the council thought she had too much money. A court decided the council didn't correctly use the rules about how to figure out if someone has too much money. The case will be heard again, using the correct rules.
Key Facts
- •ZA appealed a decision by the London Borough of Barnet denying her housing benefit.
- •Barnet considered ZA's husband's income and shareholdings in three companies when assessing her entitlement.
- •The dispute centered on whether ZA had or should be treated as having capital exceeding the £16,000 limit.
- •ZA did not participate in the Upper Tribunal hearing.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) upheld Barnet's decision.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FTT made material errors of law.
Legal Principles
No person shall be entitled to an income-related benefit if their capital or a prescribed part of it exceeds the prescribed amount.
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, Section 134(1)
Capital limit for housing benefit is £16,000.
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Regulation 43
Calculation of capital considers actual capital and capital treated as such.
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Regulation 44
Regulation 49(5) allows discretionary treatment of claimants analogous to sole owners/partners in a company; if exercised, regulations 49(5)(a) and (b) must be applied, subject to 49(6).
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Regulation 49(5), (6)
Ordinarily, a person's capital in a company is the value of their shareholding, not the company's assets. Regulation 49(5) provides an exception.
CA v Hastings Borough Council [2022] UKUT 57 (AAC), R(SB)57/83
Prest v Petrodel does not provide a basis for a new approach to calculating capital; the 2006 Regulations provide a complete system.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others [2013] UKSC 34
Outcomes
The First-tier Tribunal's decision was set aside and remitted for rehearing.
The FTT made material errors of law in identifying the decision under appeal, addressing whether ZA had or was treated as having capital, applying Regulation 49(5) and (6), and considering irrelevant arguments.