Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Housing Costs Under UC Question
Hi
Apologies another question about HCE under UC - side note: Has there been a push on looking at HCE under UC more closely? I’m getting quite a few clients now where HCE have been rejected.
My main question is what are the issues with the landlord living with tenant? In both of my cases, landlord lives with the client in essentially a bedsit (was a hotel converted into bedsits) but has no relation with the client (no familial relationship etc)
The first client whom I have an appeal next Tuesday - the DWP have mentioned this in their decision letter but have made no further comment on it other than it being a “fact” - no appeal bundle so I’m kind of flying blind with this one
My other client they have specifically raised the issue as well as issues with the tenancy.
Any help would be appreciated - I’ve submitted by submission for the first client and not mentioned it but would be good to have a response prepared in case DWP raise it.
Has your first client not received an appeal bundle? If they haven’t, I think you need to contact HMCTS asap to alert them to this omission and seek an adjournment. How can you make a cogent argument when you have no idea what DWP are alleging?
Has your first client not received an appeal bundle? If they haven’t, I think you need to contact HMCTS asap to alert them to this omission and seek an adjournment. How can you make a cogent argument when you have no idea what DWP are alleging?
Judge has already ordered them to send one and they, to date, refused to do so. Unfortunately, it is an urgent hearing as the client is pending eviction if we do not win the appeal so no adjournment can be given.
I’ve made it quite clear in my submission that I’m “flying blind” and simply going off their decision letter - with also a few stern comments on how the DWP have acted horrendously in this case
If an occupant and landlord share living accommodation, then this changes the status of their security of tenure. The occupant would not be a tenant but an excluded occupier. This means that they can be evicted without a court order by the landlord giving valid notice and then taking possession of the living space.
This kind of occupant is often referred to as a lodger. Excluded in this context means excluded from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Shared accommodation includes any room such as a kitchen, living room or bathroom but excludes storage areas, stairways and hallways.
The landlord can peaceably evict the occupier and, once a valid notice has expired, the landlord can change the locks while the occupier is out. They cannot use force or harassment to make an occupant to leave though.
This status does not affect liability for rent. A lodger is liable for rent under the agreement and must pay as agreed.
As far as I am aware this does not affect claims for UC HCE, but happy to be corrected on that, as I’m more of a housing than WB adviser.
Can I clarify the housing situation please? Am I right in thinking that the property has a number of bedsits and your client lives in one bedsit, the landlord in another? Any other residents in other bedsits? Any written agreement? Does the landlord share any accommodation with your client or is the bedsit self-contained with cooking and toilet facilities? When you say your client will be evicted if they lose the appeal, will court action be required for this?
You say you’ve written a submission for the appeal based on the decision letter - what is the gist of this? Are DWP indicating that they believe it’s not a commercial arrangement, that the landlord and your client as LTAHAW or something else?
Hi Mairi
To answer your questions - yes the property has a number of bedsits with other residents and my client and landlord in separate bedsits. Client has a House Share agreement which acts a tenancy agreement. I believe they share cooking facilities not sure about toilet facilities. Its not clear if court action is required but I would believe it would be necessary as per the House Share agreement.
The gist of the letter is that it fails the liability condition as the client has not provided enough quality evidence to prove he is liable to pay rent - DWP allege he sent in blurry photos, incorrect house share agreements (one had the wrong dates, incorrect rent amount and was unsigned - the second is a wrong year which was clearly a mistake and written over to correct it (says 83 not 23))
We’ve now provided further evidence - letter from landlord, bank statements showing rent paid by father and will be getting information completed by his Probation Officer
As an aside, have you referred the client to the local authority homelessness team? They have a prevention duty if someone is threatened with eviction within 56 days and he should be eligible for legal aid in respect of the homelessness as well.
As an aside, have you referred the client to the local authority homelessness team? They have a prevention duty if someone is threatened with eviction within 56 days and he should be eligible for legal aid in respect of the homelessness as well.
I believe Shelter are dealing with all those issues. They couldn’t attend the appeal, so thats when we stepped in
It sounds like you’ve got everything sown up for the appeal. I can see why the DWP would have issues with the incorrect agreements but as no actual agreement in writing is required that should be okay. Have Shelter given advice on what your client’s status in the property is based on the accommodation they have?
Do both your clients live in the same property?
It sounds like you’ve got everything sown up for the appeal. I can see why the DWP would have issues with the incorrect agreements but as no actual agreement in writing is required that should be okay. Have Shelter given advice on what your client’s status in the property is based on the accommodation they have?
Do both your clients live in the same property?
I haven’t directly spoken to Shelter but my client has and it seems my client’s status is a “normal” house share arrangements - Neither Shelter, Probation Officer nor his work coach can see why there is an issue.
No both are fully separate clients - the second client’s situation is ridiculous and borderlines laughable! I saw her yesterday and got her to describe the property which is literally 4 self-contained flats (all amenities in one flat) in a block of flats with the manager of the property living in the ground floor flat!
The DWP are saying that the landlord lives at the same property which isn’t true but the manager lives in the same block of flats and is allowed to sign tenancy agreements across the area