Is buildings insurance premium eligible for inclusion in Housing Benefit?

peteuk

bkmla said:

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. 

I have read with interest all that you have written.

I have noticed that a view expressed by a few contributors is that buildings insurance is just another household bill - but so is rent, and this qualifies for Housing Benefit, because it is linked to 'provision of adequate accommodation'.

This principle can also be applied to buildings insurance, in terms of my circumstances.

Repairs, electricity and contents insurance are household bills. But if someone cannot afford to pay these they will not face eviction, whereas, in my circumstances, if I cannot afford to pay buildings insurance premiums I could be evicted for breaching my occupancy agreement. And this would deprive me of 'provision of adequate accommodation'.

Rent is not a house hold bill, nor is a mortgage however you receive a payment towards your rent, not your household bills.   However in this case it covers Service charge, but you have CHOSEN to Opt into adding the insurance to the service charge. 

Electricity bills ect are not held against the property, so fail to pay and yes they may change your meter, cut you off (in the 80’s) and if extensive outstanding bills may take you to court. So eviction is unlikely.   I take it that insurance is part of your part ownership agreement so yes if you fail to pay it, then you break the agreement and risk eviction.

This wouldnt deprive you of “provision of adequate accommodation” as you will be advised to go to the housing department and seek alternative housing, akin to anyone who has been evicted.  

HillStreetBlues

The issue the OP has is the fact the OP can find their own insurance.
Under HB rules if the building insurance was a compulsory part of the service charge then the HA would have to pay, but the LA is claiming it isn't a compulsory part of the SC, although OP does need the insurance.

At first glance the LA does seem to be correct as payment is not a condition of the tenancy agreement via the SC, but that doesn't mean the OP shouldn't appeal as the council (and my) reading of the issue could be incorrect.

Muttleythefrog

The rules for UC and Housing benefit alongside the array of different ownership/rental situations means appeal probably is worth trying. Just for reference in support of what I say... just in the last month U/C decided they could not include buildings insurance for our owned leasehold flat as part of the housing element paid... the irony is the very same person decided last year they could. Farce!

noitsnotme

I'm really surprised that an individual can get their own separate building insurance just for their flat.  I was always under the impression that the nature of a flat in a shared building structure always meant the insurance needed to be arranged as a whole for the building.

HillStreetBlues

noitsnotme said:

I'm really surprised that an individual can get their own separate building insurance just for their flat.  I was always under the impression that the nature of a flat in a shared building structure always meant the insurance needed to be arranged as a whole for the building.

That is a very good point.
The OP's building insurance should be a total divided by how many flats there are.
Also the HA would have to check any insurance to make sure it coves all the areas needed.

kkkklinky

If the insurance is a result of part ownership, I can see the council refusing to pay it. If it's insurance everyone in the building has to pay including council or private tenants then the council should pay. It's the ownership aspect that will determine eligibility since they may argue that your choice to own part of the property and that any resulting fees or service charges that don't affect other tenants are nothing to do with them.