Housing Benefit - buying a flat for our disabled daughter

puddy

why dont you use the money that you would have spent buying a flat, to buy a different house, one that could have a portion of the downstairs (say a garage) converted to provide semi independent accommodation, own bathroom, kitchenette etc etc

that way, no issues with spending too much on an independent flat, no tax or capital gains tax issues, no hb worries, safe and close to family when needed, independent when she wants to be

Oldernotwiser

Alternately, if you got a BTL mortgage, couldn't you buy a 2 bed flat with someone else renting the other bedroom?

puddy

yes, that way she would simply rent a room off you, you would be liable for ctax and bills are normally paid by the landlord in flat shares (if its not a joint tenancy)

the other person would also rent a room. that way she only needs to claim single room rate and you only need to charge her that. you have the safety net of getting a tenant that you like and feel would be suited to your daughters personality, not any old person like in the places she was before

KxMx

I appreciate your difficulties, but these days 20 is very young for anyone to be able to move out of home. I am 24 and disabled and would love my independence but due to my financial circumstances it is not possible. I would love to be living my own life but I can't. I too have a "right" to move out of home but it won't happen for a few years yet. No family money to provide anything but the basics and not even anyone who can drive me around or give me lifts! So I have to remain at home despite my "right" to move out. A share house is no good to me either unless I have an ensuite toilet shall we say.

Sadly when you are disabled as you probably know, it is normal to have to wait longer to do things than someone healthy and/or earning a good wage.

Maybe go ahead with the shower adaption you mentioned or convert another house as suggested.

Have you been in touch with your local council to get her assessed by a Social Worker or Occupational Therapist? You could get adaptions for your current home to make things easier for her such as extra rails on the stairs, the shower etc.

I hope I don't come across as rude and I really admire what you are trying to do for your daughter. Just trying to say maybe it's a little early to be speaking of her "rights" when many of us have the same "rights" but have to remain at home anyway and it's not so terrible.

bobajob_1966

If the link is the one I think it is (I'm on my phone so can't open it), it talks about providing accom for a disabled person where there is no alternative available. In your situation there are alternatives, but they are not within your desired price range and/ or will not take a dog.

fluffymovie

I would say that if you gift her the 225, you are already not treating her as you would another tenant and it's non commercial.

Commonsense isn't best practice in benefits, we work to regulations set down by parliament so you can see why!!

There isn't case law in the same way as precedents and judiciary but there are a large number of reported decisions and commissioners decisions which you can google. Judge Jacobs is a favourite!

karenx

Do you also think its right that your council ends up paying your whole mortgage for you? As im guessing your daughter wont ever leave the house?

Benefits_Bod

There are so many tangents to this that it's impossible to cover them in anything like the detail necessary. Based on all of the information provided so far and taking into account what others have posted, there appear to be four main issues the LA will need to consider (in logical order):

1) is there a genuine liability at all?

If so,

2) is the tenancy (or other agreement) on a commercial basis? If so,
3) has the liability been created to take advantage of the HB scheme? If not,
4) does the clmt get the relevant rate of DLA (care) to get the one-room LHA rate instead of the "shared" rate?

Earlier posts referred to equality issues and touched on Human Rights considerations and there was also a suggestion that there wasn't much case law on the issues of "commercial basis" and "taking advantage".

Taking the latter first, I can assure all concerned that there is a veritable shedload of legal authorities on the issues of liability / commerciality / taking advantage in relation to HB. They range from decisions of the former Social Security Commissioners / the Upper Tribunal / High Court / Court of Appeal / House of Lords. I can personally identify, at a glance, more than 150 such authorities.

Some of those authorities are available from the website of the Tribunals Judiciary - http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/default.aspx . Use the "Category" and "SubCategory" filters and just hit "enter" without entering any reference numbers.

IMPORTANT: As will quickly become apparent, there are decisions that will, on the face of it, entirely support the claimant's position and others which, again on the face of it, entirely undermine the position. No single decision should be taken in isolation. The law always remains the same with each decision turning on the facts of each case in the context of how the law applies to those facts. One other thing. In the event of an appeal, it is very dangerous to put legal authorities before a Tribunal on a selective basis. Firstly it potentially undermines that party's credibility and, secondly, every party is under a legal obligation to assist the Tribunal - it's not about "Me v Them".

On the matter of equality issues and Human Rights, it is rare indeed for such matters to be of any significance in a case of the type set out by the OP. Most arguments have been tried at one point or another in the context of "liability" cases and, to my knowledge, all have failed (so far). You're much better off focussing on the basic legislation and case law that relates to the "liability" issues.

Sanzomat

Benefits_Bod wrote: »

There are so many tangents to this that it's impossible to cover them in anything like the detail necessary. Based on all of the information provided so far and taking into account what others have posted, there appear to be four main issues the LA will need to consider (in logical order):

1) is there a genuine liability at all?

If so,

2) is the tenancy (or other agreement) on a commercial basis? If so,
3) has the liability been created to take advantage of the HB scheme? If not,
4) does the clmt get the relevant rate of DLA (care) to get the one-room LHA rate instead of the "shared" rate?

Earlier posts referred to equality issues and touched on Human Rights considerations and there was also a suggestion that there wasn't much case law on the issues of "commercial basis" and "taking advantage".

Taking the latter first, I can assure all concerned that there is a veritable shedload of legal authorities on the issues of liability / commerciality / taking advantage in relation to HB. They range from decisions of the former Social Security Commissioners / the Upper Tribunal / High Court / Court of Appeal / House of Lords. I can personally identify, at a glance, more than 150 such authorities.

Some of those authorities are available from the website of the Tribunals Judiciary -. Use the "Category" and "SubCategory" filters and just hit "enter" without entering any reference numbers.

IMPORTANT: As will quickly become apparent, there are decisions that will, on the face of it, entirely support the claimant's position and others which, again on the face of it, entirely undermine the position. No single decision should be taken in isolation. The law always remains the same with each decision turning on the facts of each case in the context of how the law applies to those facts. One other thing. In the event of an appeal, it is very dangerous to put legal authorities before a Tribunal on a selective basis. Firstly it potentially undermines that party's credibility and, secondly, every party is under a legal obligation to assist the Tribunal - it's not about "Me v Them".

On the matter of equality issues and Human Rights, it is rare indeed for such matters to be of any significance in a case of the type set out by the OP. Most arguments have been tried at one point or another in the context of "liability" cases and, to my knowledge, all have failed (so far). You're much better off focussing on the basic legislation and case law that relates to the "liability" issues.

Thanks for your reply, particularly the link to the tribunal reports. I'd googled for hours and failed to find this so the link was just what I needed, although the reports don't contain a case just like hours there are some points raised that are useful to consider and helps to know "how their minds work"
I particularly like one of the reports findings where it agreed that there is nothing basically wrong about deriving benefit from housing benefit - otherwise why does it exist. They say in this report that it is necessary to demonstrate (in contrivance tests) that there is an abuse of the system, not just that someone benefits from the payments.

Sanzomat

karenx wrote: »

Do you also think its right that your council ends up paying your whole mortgage for you? As im guessing your daughter wont ever leave the house?

The council won't be paying our whole mortgage. The payments we'd get in rent following our reverse balancing payment and tax (assuming even that the HB is granted) wouldn't even completely cover the interest so won't make a dent in the capital how ever long the arrangement lasts. This isn't being done to make money, our intention is solely to find a way to get our daughter into the best possible accommodation at the minimum cost to us - we'll still be out of pocket, its just by how much. Alternatively we could rent out the flat on the open market and be quids-in. In fact that's our fall back if this situation is deemed not claimable. We could rent out our flat, make a profit, find a 1 bed flat on the open market for our daughter to rent and claim HB (room rate) and use the profit from our flat to make up the difference between room rate and actual rent on our daughters rented flat. If we do that then there is no question of eligibility for HB for our daughter so it brings me back to my original proposal as to why there should ever be any question about the eligibility for her renting "our" flat.