Old scheme claim, criteria to restrict to RO decision

hi,
Customer been on HB since 1992 ( before LHA) and rent is referred to rent officer.
Customer is a pensioner (74) and therefore is classed as “vulnerable” - so we can only restrict the rent IF we feel its reasonable for her to move AND there is suitable alternative accommodation available. She is in a 3 bed property and would have a 1 bed / 2 room need under RO

We haven’t ever restricted the rent before…. but we have started now “as covid restrictions easing” so its easier for her to move (!!) 

I am not convinced this is the correct approach - to be fair, its years since I’ve done one of these, but I thought the LA couldn’t just say “theres plenty of privately rented properties around, so suitable cheaper accomm is available”  - i thought we actually had yo find a specific property for her - and think it had to offer the same security of tenure (which any new tenancy wouldn’t do)

However, i cant seem to find the reg ( I know its old reg 11, and i cant find the bit about restricting vulnerable groups in the “new” regs)

It may be that in the good old days when LA’s weren’t so strapped for cash, hat we’ be ok at losing the subsidy over the RO decision - I have a feeling that the loss of subsidy is playing more of a deciding factor in whether its reasonable for her to move or not than it should be doing (because it should be part of the decision at all!)

please can someone advise whether Im dreaming the security of tenure for the suitable , alternative accommodation , and whether we have to do more than point ciutomer in the direction of right move or not.

Thanks - Prisca

It is para (9) of Reg 13 in the version now found at para 5 of Schedule 3 to the HB&CTB; (Consequential Provisions) Regs 2006 (SI 2006/213).  Possible significance of the pre-1996 tenancy date, apart from engaging the preserved form of Reg 13 in the first place, is that unless her original T/A said “Hello, I’m an AST” then it is an open-ended assured tenancy.  [If the tenancy predates 1989, so much the better but I guess it cannot if you have been referring to the RO].  It is unlikely you would find any private sector landlords offering open-ended assured tenancies these days, so the Reg 13 “unreasonable” comparison would have to be with social sector tenancies.  For someone that age you would probably find plenty available actually, without wishing to be macabre there is a pretty rapid churn in sheltered housing.  But the recent Birmingham Court of Appeal case (Birmingham City Council v SS & Ors (Roshni intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 1211) says any restriction would have to take into account the very different circumstances in which private and social landlords operate.  If you level the playing field, any restriction would likely be a token amount.

I would also take the view that the length of time the claimant has lived in that home without the Council turning a hair is a relevant factor when considering whether the rent is unreasonable.  If you didn’t think it was before, how come you suddenly do now?  There is an evidential burden on the Council to justify such a volte face.

Me, I’d leave it alone.

Mr Barker -You are a star!
Much appreciated! leaving it as it was (no restriction) was my preferred choice

This lady is the mexfield housing cooperative claim I posted about last week, so her tenancy is indeed open ended.
She started renting in 1992, hence not registered, hence why its been referred to the rent officer.

Thanks for the pointer to the schedule - I shall put on a winning smile and explain why our restriction approach id flawed!