Tweet
Might be interesting.
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT OF 13 JUNE 2007: SUMMARY
The Queen (on the application of Daniel Heffernan) v The Rent Service:
The Court of Appeal (CA) found in favour of The Rent Service (TRS) in the Heffernan judicial review case.
This case was about the meaning of ‘locality’ as defined in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997.
Mr Heffernan rented a property at the top end of the private rented market and claimed Housing Benefit to help with his rent. The level of his benefit was limited by the local reference rent (LRR) set by the rent officer. The LRR is the mid-point in the range of non-exceptional rents in the locality. Mr Heffernan claimed that the locality used by rent officers to decide his LRR in 2004 and 2005 was ‘too wide’ and unlawful. The locality used was the whole city of Sheffield and its rural hinterland.
The CA has overturned the earlier High Court judgment (October 2006). The CA concluded that the rent officers involved had in fact provided sufficient evidence and assessments to demonstrate they had followed the law. The Sheffield locality used was lawful.
The CA noted that the legal definition of ‘locality’ does not favour a “narrow geographical restriction”. It rejected Mr Heffernan’s arguments for limiting a locality to an area in which services and facilities were all of a very similar quality. This would have the effect of segregating ‘deprived’ and ‘more prosperous’ areas into different localities. This was not Parliament’s intention.
For full text of CA judgment is freely available at:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/544.html
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT OF 13 JUNE 2007: SUMMARY
The Queen (on the application of Daniel Heffernan) v The Rent Service:
The Court of Appeal (CA) found in favour of The Rent Service (TRS) in the Heffernan judicial review case.
This case was about the meaning of ‘locality’ as defined in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997.
Mr Heffernan rented a property at the top end of the private rented market and claimed Housing Benefit to help with his rent. The level of his benefit was limited by the local reference rent (LRR) set by the rent officer. The LRR is the mid-point in the range of non-exceptional rents in the locality. Mr Heffernan claimed that the locality used by rent officers to decide his LRR in 2004 and 2005 was ‘too wide’ and unlawful. The locality used was the whole city of Sheffield and its rural hinterland.
The CA has overturned the earlier High Court judgment (October 2006). The CA concluded that the rent officers involved had in fact provided sufficient evidence and assessments to demonstrate they had followed the law. The Sheffield locality used was lawful.
The CA noted that the legal definition of ‘locality’ does not favour a “narrow geographical restriction”. It rejected Mr Heffernan’s arguments for limiting a locality to an area in which services and facilities were all of a very similar quality. This would have the effect of segregating ‘deprived’ and ‘more prosperous’ areas into different localities. This was not Parliament’s intention.
For full text of CA judgment is freely available at:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/544.html
