RM v Sefton Council (HB)

RM v Sefton Council (HB)

The claimant's activities as a landlord and leaseholder, though conscientious and involving some administrative burden, did not exceed what is typical for landlords and did not amount to carrying on a business. Therefore, the flat was not a business asset and its value could not be disregarded for housing benefit purposes. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its decision or in its approach to valuation, as the evidence showed the claimant's equity in the property exceeded the £16,000 threshold regardless of the presence of tenants.

Parties
Claimant: RM; Respondent: Sefton Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Housing Benefit Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; First-tier Tribunal decision upheld
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit, Income Related Benefits, Capital Assessment, Business Asset Disregard
Social Security Law Administrative Law Housing Benefit Income Related Benefits Capital Assessment Business Asset Disregard

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RM

Claimant

Sefton Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Housing Benefit Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's flat was a business asset whose value could be disregarded for housing benefit purposes
  2. 2 If not, what was the value of the flat at the time of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's activities as a landlord and leaseholder, though conscientious and involving some administrative burden, did not exceed what is typical for landlords and did not amount to carrying on a business. Therefore, the flat was not a business asset and its value could not be disregarded for housing benefit purposes. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its decision or in its approach to valuation, as the evidence showed the claimant's equity in the property exceeded the £16,000 threshold regardless of the presence of tenants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; First-tier Tribunal decision upheld