PB v Stoke-on-Trent City Council (HB): [2026] UKUT 372 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Markus on 29 September 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
In deciding whether a tenancy was “not on a commercial basis” within regulation 9(1)(a) of the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006, the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in that:
a) It added a gloss to the statutory words by asking whether the tenancy “was or was not commercial” and whether it was “a true commercial tenancy or not” rather than asking whether it was “not on a commercial basis”;
b) It seized on the landlord’s failure to take action in regard to rent arrears as being determinative, and failed to carry out the required fact-finding, analysis and weighing of relevant factors;
c) It compared the landlord’s approach to that of a hypothetical commercial landlord.