I’m advising a client who is in supported accommodation with staff on site. My understanding was that the supported accommodation was provided under s117. The rent has for years been paid by Housing Benefit, as is quite common in such situations.
Unfortunately by missing appointments and leaving correspondence unanswered, my client has lost his benefits, leading to rent arrears of some thousands of pounds. He has no idea how he’s going to pay this off.
His LA are saying that the staff at the placement are covered by s117, but not the rent, because everybody needs a roof over their head.
This seems to me like saying ‘you need a wheelchair, but we’re only going to pay for the wheels because everybody needs somewhere to sit.’
I know that s117 doesn’t cover ordinary accommodation, but staffed accommodation surely isn’t ordinary?
Have a look at the following Local Government Ombudsman’s determinations, for reference to what is “accommodation plus” which has been considered relevant accommodation within the remit of s117.
They are both highly relevant to the charging of rent and/or service charge to tenants/licencees in schemes where there is staffing to support individuals with mental health needs.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (19 002 160)
London Borough of Lewisham (18 010 781)
I had a similar situation, but in my case, benefits were stopped when the person received a lump sum from a will, which he lost his benefits, which were the qualifying benefit for the supported accommodation, ie housing benefit. This paid for the flat, services, including support.
I had developed a Care Plan which clearly demonstrated that the accommodation was linked to the provision of care, support workers, monitoring, assistance etc. Without the accommodation, support could not be provided, and the person would experience a relapse in his mental state. It was clear the care plan was there to prevent further admissions to the local mental health unit.
I referred the local authority, who were my employers that in this case the accommodation was more than ordinary and was ‘accommodation plus’.
I pointed the local authority to Mwanza, and the issue was soon resolved. He should not have been paying for Section 117 aftercare R (Mwanza) v LB of Greenwich [2010] EWHC 1462 (Admin) - Mental Health Law Online
That’s really helpful, thanks Steve
Thanks so much
In this instance accommodation would be within the scope of s117. Please see recent Local Government and Social Care ombudsman decision on a similar case by Cheshire East Council where complainant was awarded substantial pay in backdated rent plus interest and avoidable legal fees.
Do you have a link to the case? Thanks
Cheshire East Council (23 005 368) - 23 005 368 - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman - an interesting complaint. The person had been receiving s117 aftercare for many years. Initially in a residential home which later deregistered.
The person was told to claim HB for pay for rent - this was fault. Accommodation was part of the aftercare plan and remains until no longer a need.
Brilliant, thanks!