Housing costs on two homes

Just been skim-reading the D&A Regs and main UC Regs and haven’t found anything that properly reconciles the apparent conflict between the provision to occupy two homes in various situations under Schedule 3 and the principle that superseding decisions take effect from the beginning of the month in which the change occurred.  Schedule 4 provides for an aggregated housing costs assessment based on a month of rent for each home, but by the end of the month you might not be liable for both. I can see there are exceptions to the whole month supersession rule, but (I think) none that cover two homes scenarios.

Take the example of someone waiting for disability adaptations.  Say the UC AP runs from the 10th of the month.  The new tenancy starts on the 1st and the works are finished by the 15th.  Logic says (and the HB scheme provides) that the claimant is entitled to two overlapping housing costs covering that precise period: the 1st to the 15th; and that it is paid as part of the AP in which the 15th falls.  It cannot be paid in the earlier AP because the claimant hasn’t moved yet at that stage.  But what about UC for the old property? By the end of AP2, the claimant isn’t living there anymore and so does not get any housing element for it.

So although the Regs are trying to allow UC on two homes, what happens is that the rate changes from the old rent to the new rent from AP2 without any overlap.

Or, if UC is awarded on both homes in AP2, is it a full month of both rents even if actual liability was less?  I cannot see anything that says otherwise.

I stress that I have been skim-reading so it is entirely possible I have missed something important.

Can you see the provision for housing element to be paid on a period of notice that is unavoidable, which could also be an overlap so on two properties or if moving to res care?

No, that’s gone for sure.

Am now puzzled by this too, thanks for raising HB Anorak.  Can anyone clarify with DWP housing costs team?

The DWP have published an information sheet - Universal Credit and rented housing – frequently asked questions.

Here is what it says about this:

Paying for two homes

Q21. In what circumstances can Universal Credit be paid on two homes?

Support through Universal Credit can be paid on two homes, if:
• liability for two homes has arisen because of fear of violence in the normal home. Both liabilities can be paid for up to 12 months as long as there is an intention to return to the original property.
• a disabled person can’t move into a new home because it needs adaptations.  The claimant must show that the delay is reasonable. Both liabilities can be paid
for up to 1 month.

Multiple homes can be treated as a single home, for benefit purposes, where a family has been housed in two homes because of the size of the family, this is not time bound.  The Housing element of Universal Credit can also be paid where someone is not able to occupy their home because of essential repairs but will only cover either the housing costs of the other accommodation or the accommodation which they normally occupy as their home (not both).

If someone cannot move into accommodation immediately because he/she is in hospital or a care home then the Housing element of Universal Credit can be paid on the new accommodation for up to one month.

How about these examples:

1. Claimant absent from normal home due to fear of violence and liable for payments on refuge as well as the place she has temporarily moved out of.  At the end of the month in which she goes to the refuge she appears to be entitled to a full month of UC on both homes.  So far so good - a small windfall.  She stays in the refuge for six weeks and moves back home during her next UC assessment period.  Now it looks like she is only going to tet UC on her normal home for that AP because she only has the one liability when the music stops at the end of the month.  So she has had qualifying overlapping liability for six weeks but only gets paid for a month, and not really at the right time either.

2. Claimant is briefly in a refuge for a period that falls wholly within a single AP.  At the end of the month she is back home again, so no overlapping UC at all.

3. Claimant is in a refuge from the last day of AP1 until the first day of AP3.  She gets a full month’s rent on the refuge for both AP1 and AP2 despite only being liable for about half that amount.

I cannot find anything that says the two-homes calculation is sensitive to part months.  I can find rules governing the conversion of non-monthly frequencies into their monthly equivalent, and I can find rules that say certain superseding decisions will split the month but not in cases like these.

The FAQ doesn’t seem to address how these two homes provisions fit imnto the monthly AP cycle