Richards v The Legal Services Commission: Admn 19 Jul 2006

The claimant challenged the inclusion in her gross income for calculation of her eligibility to legal aid of maintenance payments received for her children who were both at University. She said that since she had responsibility for their maintenance, and they were studying away from home, they were not part of her household, and a deduction could be made.
Held: ‘whether a child remains a member of a household is just as much a function of attitude (and, perhaps, emotion) as an application of a simple test of hours spent in the home. A student taking a gap year prior to university may not set foot in his or her parents’ home for an entire year, but could still remain a member of the household. In each case, the question is one of fact having regard to all the circumstances of residence, relationship and ties. ‘ The court could not say that the LSC had not been entitled to conclude that the sons remained part of the household.
[2006] EWHC 1809 (Admin)
Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999, Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Birmingham Juvenile Court Ex Parte S 1984
The court considered what was meant by the term ‘household’: ‘at the heart of the concept it is the persons who comprise the household . . and not the place where the household is located as a matter of residence.’ . .
CitedLondon Borough of Hackney v Ezedinma QBD 1981
The house had rooms let for students in the basement and on the ground, first and second floors, with kitchens on the top three floors to serve the rooms. Five rooms had been let when the authority issued a notice under section 19(1) to restrict the . .
CitedSimmons v Pizzey HL 1979
As to houses in multiple occupation, ‘both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive’. After reference to the the . .
CitedEngland v Secretary of State for Social Services 1982
Although the children spent weekdays in voluntary care because the parents were at work, their bedrooms were maintained, they saw their parents on the weekend, and the arrangement was not intended as permanent. The court was asked whether they . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243328