PB v Stoke-on-Trent City Council (HB): [2026] UKUT 372 (AAC)
Summary
The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal made legal errors when assessing whether a tenancy was not on a commercial basis under regulation 9(1)(a) of the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006. The decision emphasises that the correct test is the statutory wording itself, with proper fact-finding and weighing of relevant factors, rather than comparisons to a hypothetical commercial landlord.
Why it matters
This is relevant to surveyors involved in housing benefit, tenancy assessment or expert evidence where the commercial nature of an occupation arrangement may be in issue. It also highlights the importance of careful analysis of rent arrears, landlord conduct and the legal test applied by tribunals.
Key points
- Upper Tribunal identified errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s approach.
- The correct question is whether the tenancy was "not on a commercial basis" under regulation 9(1)(a).
- The tribunal should not substitute a broader or different test such as whether the tenancy was "commercial".
- Failure to pursue rent arrears was not, by itself, determinative.
- Proper fact-finding and weighing of relevant factors were required.
This is an RPSA summary of a publicly available article. The full content remains with the original publisher.
