Good morning

Tribunal finds that the support provided was more than minimal and made a real difference

Choice Housing (CH) has secured an important Tribunal outcome for tenants whose Housing Benefit Sheffield City Council suspended or refused. The decision followed a lengthy dispute over CH’s supported exempt accommodation and the care, support, and supervision it provided to residents.

Background

CH provided “council approved” supported exempt accommodation in Sheffield for about 12 years before the Council, without prior warning, suspended existing awards and declined to progress new claims. This immediately affected vulnerable residents and severely pressured CH’s rental income and its ability to maintain its service.

I first wrote to the Council’s Directorate to question the lawfulness of that approach, then helped CH’s director, Mr Mellors, begin appeals in every affected case. In the short term, we approached the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and, after initial hesitation, secured Local Housing Allowance payments to provide interim cash flow. DWP also criticised the Council’s lack of engagement, and the Council subsequently made extra-statutory payments to cover gaps in the “housing costs” of affected Employment Support Allowance tenants.

The lead appeals

Before the merits hearing, the parties agreed that seven cases would proceed as lead appeals, with a further 12 cases stayed pending the outcome. The hearing lasted three demanding days and examined both the legality of the Council’s decision-making and the substance of the support provided to each tenant.

The evidence that proved decisive

Mr Mellors gave detailed, credible evidence about CH’s referral and assessment process. Councils, charities, and other not-for-profit organisations refer residents. CH personally screens each prospective resident before offering accommodation and prepares individual care and development plans to address identified needs.

CH’s support staff also supplied witness statements and contemporaneous records describing the assistance delivered to individual residents. That claimant-specific material enabled the Tribunal to follow the evidential chain from referral and identified need, through the support provided, to the practical effect on each tenant’s ability to manage daily life and sustain the accommodation.

The landlord’s contribution was central to the outcome. CH assembled the critical evidence, ensured staff evidence was available, and helped the Tribunal understand how the service operated in practice. He also responded carefully during sustained questioning in which the Council’s appointed barrister challenged the reliability, consistency and authenticity of parts of the evidence. Mr Mellors openly addressed imperfections in some records, explained the context in which they were created, and remained focused on the substance of the support delivered. That measured response helped the Tribunal assess the evidence.

The Tribunal’s findings

The Tribunal accepted our submission that the Council’s initial approach was unlawful. Payments had been stopped without prior engagement with CH or the residents, and the decision letters failed to satisfy basic statutory requirements.

More importantly, after considering the written material and Mr Mellors’ oral evidence, the Tribunal concluded in each lead case that the support satisfied the relevant legal tests. It was more than minimal or token and likely made a real difference to the resident’s ability to cope with everyday life and remain in the accommodation.

Lessons for supported housing providers

  • Challenge blanket suspensions and refusals promptly, particularly where there has been no claimant-specific investigation or lawful notification.
  • Preserve the full referral pathway, initial assessment, support plan, case notes and evidence of outcomes for each resident.
  • Show not merely what tasks were performed, but why they were required and what practical difference they made.
  • Ensure that staff evidence is specific, candid and capable of being explained under questioning.
  • Do not assume that imperfect records are fatal. Acknowledge gaps or ambiguity and place them in context, while presenting the evidence as a coherent whole.

Why the decision matters

The outcome provides immediate protection for the seven successful appellants and will inform the 12 cases presently stayed. It also illustrates a wider point: courts should decide supported accommodation cases by carefully examining each resident’s needs, the assistance provided, and its practical effect—not by broad assumptions about the landlord or isolated criticism of individual case-note entries.

CH’s experience demonstrates the value of early challenge, organised claimant-specific evidence and a landlord prepared to explain its service plainly and withstand detailed scrutiny. In this case, that work greatly assisted the Tribunal and helped secure the correct outcome for the tenants concerned.

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

Phone 07733 080 389