IB v Gravesham Borough Council & Anor

IB v Gravesham Borough Council & Anor

Regulation 64(3) requires consideration of all the claimant's circumstances, including religious beliefs. It was not reasonable for the claimant to take steps to acquire a student loan that would require him to pay interest, which his religion forbids. Therefore, he should not be treated as possessing the notional student loan for housing benefit means testing.

Parties
Appellant: IB; First Respondent: Gravesham Borough Council; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (social Entitlement Chamber) / Upper Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit, Student Loans, Religious Discrimination, Means Testing, Interpretation of Regulations
Social Security Law Administrative Law Equality and Human Rights Housing Benefit Student Loans Religious Discrimination Means Testing Interpretation of Regulations

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IB

Appellant

Gravesham Borough Council

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (social Entitlement Chamber) / Upper Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 64(3) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 requires a student to be treated as possessing a student loan they could have acquired only by taking steps contrary to their religious beliefs
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to take out a student loan on religious grounds is a 'reasonable step' under the regulation
  3. 3 Whether the regulation, as interpreted, is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 or the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 64(3) requires consideration of all the claimant's circumstances, including religious beliefs. It was not reasonable for the claimant to take steps to acquire a student loan that would require him to pay interest, which his religion forbids. Therefore, he should not be treated as possessing the notional student loan for housing benefit means testing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The First-tier Tribunal decision is set aside.
  • Regulation 64(3) does not treat the claimant as possessing the student loan he would have been entitled to if he had applied.