The respondent board had refused to pay housing benefit on the basis that the claimant’s tenancy was not run on a commercial basis. She asserted that they had not given her a fair opportunity to be heard. New regulations had changed the treatment of her situation, and the board had delayed its decision to her disadvantage.
Held: The delay was short and not unfair. The factors relevant to assessing whether an agreement was on a commercial basis are not closed but include all the circumstances and particularly the absence of a rent book, that occupation had arisen at the instigation of the claimant, who was agent for the property, who entered it without consultation; and the absence of possession proceedings. Was the tribunal independent. It comprised councillors and council workers. There was no sound basis in this case for concluding that the appearance of a lack of independence and impartiality gave rise to a violation of article 6.
Justice Newman
[2001] EWHC Admin 967
Bailii
Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1998 (1998 No.3257), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 130, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.167276
