Taryn Baptie v The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Taryn Baptie v The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

The reviewing officer's reliance on AHAS guidance was lawful and objective; neither the benefit cap nor Universal Credit standard allowances were legally required benchmarks for reasonable living expenses under the current statutory and guidance framework. The County Court Judge erred in law by treating AHAS guidance as irrelevant and by requiring the benefit cap as a benchmark.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Taryn Baptie; Defendant/appellant: The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal, Second Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; County Court order set aside; appeal to County Court dismissed.
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Affordability Assessment, Statutory Guidance, Judicial Review
Housing Law Administrative Law Intentional Homelessness Affordability Assessment Statutory Guidance Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taryn Baptie

Claimant/respondent

The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal, Second Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reviewing officer erred in law by treating AHAS guidance as relevant objective guidance for reasonable living expenses
  2. 2 Whether the reviewing officer erred by failing to treat the benefit cap or Universal Credit standard allowances as benchmarks for reasonable living expenses
  3. 3 Whether any other public law error vitiated the multifactorial assessment of reasonable living expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing officer's reliance on AHAS guidance was lawful and objective; neither the benefit cap nor Universal Credit standard allowances were legally required benchmarks for reasonable living expenses under the current statutory and guidance framework. The County Court Judge erred in law by treating AHAS guidance as irrelevant and by requiring the benefit cap as a benchmark.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; County Court order set aside; appeal to County Court dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside the County Court Judge's order.
  • Substitute an order dismissing Ms Baptie's appeal to the County Court.