The claimant sought judicial review of the redetermination of housing benefits payable in respect of two flats rented out by him. The rent office said that the regulations were merely intended to put in statute form the previous practice used when identifying the ‘locality’ fro comparable lettings.
Judges:
Gilbart QC J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 2478 (Admin), [2006] NPC 108, [2007] ACD 30
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Benefit (General Regulations) 1987 12CA, Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 SI 1997/1984
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cumpsty, Regina (on the Application of) v Rent Service Admn 8-Nov-2002
. .
Cited – Regina (Catherine Dinsdale, Caloline Wilson, Barbara Shaw, and Safina Saadat) v The Rent Service Admn 2-Feb-2001
. .
Cited – Regina (Saadat) v The Rent Service CA 26-Oct-2001
When choosing an area over which comparisons of rents are to be made, the Service had to look at a locality which was no larger than was necessary to establish such a comparison. The choice of too wide an area resulted in the inclusion within the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Rent Service v Heffernan, Regina (on the Application of) CA 13-Jun-2007
Appeal against housing benefit rederminations. . .
At first instance – Heffernan, Regina (on the Application of) v The Rent Service HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged the decision of the respondent to redetermine the rents for two properties, saying that the officer had wrongly interpreted the meaning of locality when looking for comparable properties.
Held: The determinations were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.245358