QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SANDWELL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL||(CLAIMANT)|
|MR JOHN PERKS||(DEFENDANT)|
|THE WEST MIDLANDS (WEST) VALUATION TRIBUNAL||(THE INTERESTED PARTY)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
THE INTERESTED PARTY DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Crown Copyright ©
Tuesday, 8th July 2003
"(1) a person is an eligible person for the purposes of these regulations if -
(a) he is a liable person as regards a dwelling which is the sole or main residence of at least one qualifying individual and in which there is provided -
(i) a room which is not a bathroom, a kitchen or a lavatory and which is predominantly used (whether for providing therapy or otherwise) by and is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling; or
(ii) a bathroom or kitchen which is not the only bathroom or kitchen within the dwelling and which is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling; or
(iii) sufficient floor space to permit the use of a wheelchair required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling;
(2) For the purposes of a paragraph (1) and subject to paragraph (3), references to anything being required for meeting the needs of a qualifying individual are references to its being essential or of major importance to his well-being by reason of the nature and extent of his disability."
"... to a room which is predominantly used (whether for therapy or for other purposes) by, and is essential or of major importance to, the well-being of a disabled person by reason of the nature and extent of his disability."
"... not essential or of major importance to the well-being of the applicant by reason of the nature and extent of her disability. She needs the living room as such, merely in the way that anybody, whether disabled or not, needs a living room as part of ordinary life. She does not need the room because of the nature and extent of her disability."
"It cannot have been the intention of Parliament to grant a rebate merely because a room is predominantly used by a disabled person; that is quite inconsistent with the language of the section. It seems to me that the user of the room must be related to the disability. Section 1(2)(a) refers to both user and to the fact that the room must be required to meet the needs of the disabled person because of the disablement. The form of the paragraph is such that the two requirements are very closely related; that, I think, is emphasised by the word "required" - the room must be required to meet the needs of the disabled person by reason of the disability."
"(a) Mrs Howell-Williams was the single occupier of a two bedroom flat whereas Mrs E. Perks was in effect occupying her family's lounge as a bed-sitter.
(b) Because she was permanently domiciled in the lounge, the other members of Mrs E. Perks' family, her son, daughter in law and two grandchildren were having to use the kitchen and bedrooms as living room. Consequently, Mrs E. Perks' occupation of the lounge had caused the remainder of the family to alter their living arrangements.
(c) Mrs Howell-Williams had however chosen to predominantly occupy her living room rather than one of her bedrooms. In contrast, Mrs E Perks was unable to occupy any room other than the lounge due to her lack of mobility."
"In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal placed little weight on the Howell-Williams case."