[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Scrivner, R (on the application of) v Attorney General & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1488 (8 October, 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1488.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1488

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Stanley Burnton)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday 8th October, 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is an application for permission to appeal from a decision of Stanley Burnton J delivered on 11th May 2001 in which the applicant, Mrs Scrivner, sought to apply for judicial review of two decisions of the Basildon District Council Housing Benefit Review Board made first on 6th July 2000 and then reviewed on a procedural point on 10th October 2000.
2. Mrs Scrivner's complaint in its substance concerns the amount calculated by Basildon District Council in respect of housing benefit. The calculation is in a letter of 16th April 1999, which is before me, which sets out, by reference to Mrs Scrivner and her husband's personal situations, the "applicable amount" in their case being the sum of £109.35. At that time the rent that they were paying their landlord was £92.05 per week and it was that amount upon which housing benefit when it was paid was calculated.
3. It is important to understand how the concept of applicable amount is used. That is to be found in section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That was set out by the judge and I will repeat it briefly:

"(1) A person is entitled to housing benefit if-

(a) he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home; [that is Mrs Scrivner's case]

(b) there is an appropriate maximum housing benefit in his case; and

(c) either-

(i) he has no income or his income does not exceed the applicable amount; ..."

4. The use of the concept of applicable amount and of the amounts and calculations that are set out in Schedule 2 to Statutory Instrument 1987/1971 is in order to assess what is the appropriate or relevant income enjoyed by the person who is prima facie entitled to housing benefit so that there can be determined whether they should receive the whole of the benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled or some smaller amount.
5. Mrs Scrivner's complaint to the review board was that she had not been paid a sum representing the applicable amount - that is to say £109.35 - in addition to the housing benefit of £92.05. In other words, that those two sums together should have been paid to her and her husband. I fear that that is simply a misunderstanding on Mrs Scrivner's part of the nature of the provision, an understanding which Stanley Burnton J fully pointed out to her. As I have said, the calculation of applicable amount is not a calculation of that which the beneficiary is entitled to; it is simply a step in the process of the local authority determining or calculating whether there should (to put it in crude terms) be any deduction, by reason of the financial position of the beneficiary, from the amount of payment that would otherwise be made. Accordingly, the review board was entirely right on its construction of the law to reject Mrs Scrivner's application, as was Stanley Burnton J.
6. I should say two further things, however. The first is that Mrs Scrivner has complained throughout these proceedings, and also before me today, that in the earlier stage of these proceedings, which involved the Department of Social Security as a potential defendant as well as the local authority, various orders were made for the Department of Social Security to produce its calculations or records of what had been paid to Mrs Scrivner and her husband, and it is suggested by her either that those orders were not obeyed or at least that the fruit of them was not before Stanley Burnton J when he decided her application.
7. I have not gone into that, for two reasons. First, because as the case can now be perceived I do not understand how the Department of Social Security was in any event involved, seeing the complaint was with regard to Basildon. Second, although I invited her to do so, Mrs Scrivner did not make any complaint about the actual calculation of the housing benefit element, nor indeed could she have done so in law because, as I have indicated, she was awarded the whole amount of her rent. Therefore, the only issue before the learned judge below was indeed the narrow point Mrs Scrivner complains of and has complained of here; that is to say that she has not received additional payments in the amount of her applicable amount.
8. The second point is this. Mrs Scrivner says, and says forcefully, that it is all very well paying housing benefit, but she and her husband need other amounts for their daily needs, possibly connected with their housing position.
9. That I can fully understand. But as the chairman of the Housing Benefit Board helpfully made clear, or tried to, in his ruling of 13th July 2000, such benefits arise under other schemes; schemes that, unlike housing benefit, are not controlled by the local authority. Mrs Scrivner may have claims that she could properly put to the Benefits Agency in respect of those other matters. But she cannot complain of the attitude of the Basildon local authority in respect of any matter other than which falls under its proper purview, that is to say in this case housing benefit.
10. I therefore have to say that there are no grounds for complaint of the decision of Stanley Burnton J. I do not grant permission for this matter to be pursued.
11. May I say one further thing, which may be quite supererogatory. I have tried to indicate in this judgment that Mrs Scrivner and her husband's claims or needs for further financial support, other than in respect of their rent, cannot be pursued in these proceedings and cannot be pursued against Basildon. Whether or not they have such claims is a matter upon which, if they have not already done so, they should take proper advice - advice that this court cannot give them. If Mrs Scrivner is minded to do so, it is open to her to attend on a branch of the Citizens Advice Bureau, if needs be the branch located in this building, where if she will explain to the workers there that the judge has suggested that she comes to see them, not in order to pursue these legal proceedings further, but to see how, if at all, she can apply for or pursue benefits other than housing benefit, if she makes that clear to them, they may or may not be able to give her some assistance. But I suspect it may be the case that Mrs Scrivner has already exhausted those avenues.
12. So far as the matter that I have to decide is concerned, permission is not granted.
_________________