UC housing costs and NDDs

I have a joint tenant on UC, and one on HB. A non-dependent (nephew to both of these sisters) is in the property attracting the lowest NDD.

UC has decided to apply the full value of the NDD to the tenant’s housing costs, rather than 50% as would have been the case under Housing Benefit.  The information I have so far is that UC are appending the nephew entirely to her.

Is this correct? I can’t see why, because that means that between them the NDD for the nephew is being taken at 150%.

Does anyone have a link to the relevant regulations please?

The regulations are in paras 13-16 schedule 4 of the UC Regs -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/schedule/4

I’ve had a quick skim through and there doesn’t appear to be provision for only applying 50%...

there is certainly no corresponding provision to reg 74(5) of the HB Regs which allows for apportioning the deduction - not good news…

Under UC the non-dependant can only belong to one person’s “E-boo” ((c) Gareth Morgan), but of course that doesn’t assist in a case where the other joint tenant is on HB - the HB and UC rules on non-deps are incompatible in this case.

If the local authority could be persuaded that the non-dep “belongs” to the UC claimant, that would solve the problem without any impact on the HB claimant’s LHA/bedroom tax size criteria because of the different way HB counts occupiers ... but if it isnt really true that the non-dep “belongs” to the UC claimant the LA will probably be reluctant to go along with the fiction.

Bobbins.

The HB claimant is in receipt of DLA care and no NDD applies to her award, so we’d get nowhere with that.

It’s answered my question though about what happens if you have two JTs both on UC - still only one NDD - phew!

Daphne - thanks for your link and thank you both for your help.

HB Anorak said:

‘Under UC the non-dependant can only belong to one person’s “E-boo” ((c) Gareth Morgan), ‘

So, do all UC customers have to have an owl then?  Think about it…...!

Thanks for your help about the apportionment of NDDs in the example below.

The DWP UC policy team never did come back to me about this client’s NDD and the fact that it could not be apportioned as there is no regulation that allows them to do this.  My client is still having £68.68 per month deducted from her Housing Element in respect of a non-dep who would be apportioned equally between them under HB rules, and ‘belongs’ equally to both joint tenants.

So, what happens for joint tenants who are both on UC? Each JT presumably still belongs to their own household even though they share the tenancy.  If the deduction can’t be apportioned, and the non-dep does not ‘belong’ to either(any) of the households in the property, or one more than the other(s), how is it decided whose award the NDD should be applied to?

It occurred to me that the DWP has limited options.  Either they take a NDD from each of the UC claiming households at the address, meaning that more than one NDD is being taken in respect of the non-dep,  OR, they allocate the non-dep to one of the households living in the property and ignore them from the other UC households claiming from that address.  How could the either option be fair? How could the DWP justify deciding which household to allocate the non-dep to in an example such as my client’s?  I’d be advising whichever JT had the NDD allocated to appeal in this scenario, and if it was applied to the other I’d advise them to appeal too.  Could we end up in the situation where the NDD is not applied to either (or any) UC award in that property? If it was applied to both I’d also have them both appealing.

Most JTs in social housing have two tenants and therefore two separate households. In the private sector, however, where tenants have signed a tenancy agreement together, there can be huge amounts of JTs in a property. This happens particularly in large houses where the landlord does not want individual tenancies so he/she can avoid liability for council tax as an HMO,  In these circumstances, often a non-dep is yet another friend of the house residents who has merely not signed the joint tenancy agreement. It could get ridiculous.

It seems clear to me that any decision the DWP make in these cases can be open to challenge. What do other people think about this?  Do you think there is a basis for success at an MR/appeal about the DWP’s decision in my client’s case specifically, and if so, what wold be the grounds for the appeal tribunal?

Thoughts please.

From Para 9(2) of Schedule 4 to the UC Regs:

A person is a non-dependant if the person normally lives in the accommodation with the renter (or joint renters) and is none of the following–

(f) a person who has already been treated as a non-dependant in relation to a claim for universal credit by another person liable to make relevant payments in respect of the accommodation occupied by the renter.

So I don’t think it’s a question of to who whom the non-dep most strongly “belongs” - it’s just down to the random chance of which JT is first to be awarded UC.  The interesting point here is whether 9(2)(f) only applies while someone else is currently on UC with that non-dep included in his/her E-boo, or whether the non-dep can only ever belong to that first E-boo for as long as the first UC claimant lives there.  Would DWP say: “yes, we know there is only you getting UC at the moment, but because your JT friend briefly claimed it last year I am afraid s/he has claimed that non-dep as his/her own forever and you can never have a bedroom for him/her.  But cheer up, at least you don’t have a non-dep deduction”.

Thanks for your help, HB Anorak.

It’ll certainly be ‘interesting’ to see how that issue pans out!  In the meantime, I’ve done a PIP claim for the non-dep. Lets hope that’s done on scrutiny and quickly! 😊

Guess what - Enhanced DL awarded to the non-dep for two years on scrutiny! Got round the non-dep deduction that way. Thanks for all your help.