Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Dead Simple This….
from Universal Credit FAQs on gov.uk….
To be eligible to claim Universal Credit (as opposed to existing benefits), you must:
• live at your usual address, in an area where Universal Credit is available
• not be homeless, in supported or temporary accommodation, nor a homeowner
• be a British citizen with a National Insurance number
• be aged between 18 years and 60 years and six months
be fit for work
• not have applied for a fitness for work note
• consider yourself/yourselves fit for work
• not be pregnant nor have given birth within the last 15 weeks
• not be entitled to Jobseeker’s Allowance(JSA), Employment and Support
Allowance (ESA), Income Support (IS), Incapacity Benefit (IB), Severe Disablement
Allowance (SDA), Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence
Payment (PIP)
• not be awaiting a decision on a claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA),
Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Income Support (IS), Housing Benefit (HB), Child Tax Credit (CTC) or Working Tax Credit (WTC)
• not be appealing against a decision of non-entitlement to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) or Income Support (IS)
• not be awaiting the outcome of an application to revise a decision of non-entitlement to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Income Support (IS) or Housing Benefit (HB)
• not have any caring responsibilities (such as for a disabled person)
• not be self employed, a company director or part of a limited liability partnership
• not be in education or on a training course of any kind
• not have a person acting on your behalf over your claim
• have at least one suitable account that DWP can pay your money into
• not live in the same household as a member of the regular or reserve forces who is away on duty
• have lived in the UK for the last two years, and not have been abroad for more than four weeks continuously during that time
• not be required to pay child maintenance via the Child Support Agency
• not have savings in excess of £6,000
• not be an approved foster parent (even if you currently have no foster children)not be expecting to adopt a child in the next two months or (where family claims may be made) have adopted a child within the last 12 months
• not expect to receive individual take home pay of more than £330 in the next month - from 6 April 2015 this amount will increase to £338
• not be responsible for a young person under 20 who is in non-advanced education or training
not expect to receive any earnings from self employment in the next month
If you and your partner are claiming as a couple you must also:
• live at the same address
• be married to each other, civil partners of each other, or living together as if you were married
• not expect to receive joint take home pay of more than £525 in the next month - from 6 April 2015 this amount will increase to £541
• not have savings in excess of £6,000 between the two of you
....any questions????
Yes. I advise a lot of boat dwellers with no home mooring; they are technically homeless, how would they treat those?
I started this in jest however it won’t be long before someone will ask me this so best be prepared eh?
Full roll out eh?
Can anyone actually claim UC?
So in rollout areas, should we be advising clients who would otherwise have to claim UC to make a (doomed) claim to WTC (declaring true hours of work), then a day later to make a claim for JSA before the WTC is refused? This should keep them off UC and safe from the insane 35 hour search requirement.
Yes. I advise a lot of boat dwellers with no home mooring; they are technically homeless, how would they treat those?
I started this in jest however it won’t be long before someone will ask me this so best be prepared eh?
Dan, I attended the local JCP UC a presentation today and a very similar question was raised by organisations working with client groups without permenant accommodation ( sofa surfing etc ), a big issue locally, and how DWP will apply UC(TP) Reg 10? Of course this may include local boat dwellers too. Will DWP staff have training on s125 of the Housing Act? Will these claimants be regarded as residing at their usual address (which is not defined in the reg.)? Claimants in insecure or other types of accom. that don’t fit neatly into Reg 10 are probably a significant portion of claimants likely to meet the gateway criteria locally given the very low number of JSA claimants. Whilst the number may be very small - for the individual concerned and any support organisation the time required to determine whether they should claim JSA or UC could be significant. Needless to say from the DWP answers there were none.
Yes. I advise a lot of boat dwellers with no home mooring; they are technically homeless, how would they treat those?
I started this in jest however it won’t be long before someone will ask me this so best be prepared eh?
Dan, I attended the local JCP UC a presentation today and a very similar question was raised by organisations working with client groups without permenant accommodation ( sofa surfing etc ), a big issue locally, and how DWP will apply UC(TP) Reg 10? Of course this may include local boat dwellers too. Will DWP staff have training on s125 of the Housing Act? Will these claimants be regarded as residing at their usual address (which is not defined in the reg.)? Claimants in insecure or other types of accom. that don’t fit neatly into Reg 10 are probably a significant portion of claimants likely to meet the gateway criteria locally given the very low number of JSA claimants. Whilst the number may be very small - for the individual concerned and any support organisation the time required to determine whether they should claim JSA or UC could be significant. Needless to say from the DWP answers there were none.
And the main support down your end is the Waterways Chaplaincy, their only source of training is DWP provided. I support a lot of people online through the user groups and the main canal forum; I will get deluged soon!
I think best advice is claim JSA, declaring themselves homeless and see how it plays out. I’d appreciate your thoughts as you’re obviously more hands on than me right now.
Edit… Thanks Peter
[ Edited: 17 Feb 2015 at 01:42 pm by Dan_Manville ]Dan, I attended the local JCP UC a presentation today and a very similar question was raised by organisations working with client groups without permenant accommodation ( sofa surfing etc ), a big issue locally, and how DWP will apply UC(TP) Reg 10? Of course this may include local boat dwellers too. Will DWP staff have training on s125 of the Housing Act? Will these claimants be regarded as residing at their usual address (which is not defined in the reg.)? Claimants in insecure or other types of accom. that don’t fit neatly into Reg 10 are probably a significant portion of claimants likely to meet the gateway criteria locally given the very low number of JSA claimants. Whilst the number may be very small - for the individual concerned and any support organisation the time required to determine whether they should claim JSA or UC could be significant. Needless to say from the DWP answers there were none.
I think you mean Section 175 Housing Act 1996 part vii….not Section 125…
But I could be wrong.
Either way I have offered to speak to the local DWP…......
Yes! Typo!
Yes. I advise a lot of boat dwellers with no home mooring; they are technically homeless, how would they treat those?
I started this in jest however it won’t be long before someone will ask me this so best be prepared eh?
Dan, I attended the local JCP UC a presentation today and a very similar question was raised by organisations working with client groups without permenant accommodation ( sofa surfing etc ), a big issue locally, and how DWP will apply UC(TP) Reg 10? Of course this may include local boat dwellers too. Will DWP staff have training on s125 of the Housing Act? Will these claimants be regarded as residing at their usual address (which is not defined in the reg.)? Claimants in insecure or other types of accom. that don’t fit neatly into Reg 10 are probably a significant portion of claimants likely to meet the gateway criteria locally given the very low number of JSA claimants. Whilst the number may be very small - for the individual concerned and any support organisation the time required to determine whether they should claim JSA or UC could be significant. Needless to say from the DWP answers there were none.
And the main support down your end is the Waterways Chaplaincy, their only source of training is DWP provided. I support a lot of people online through the user groups and the main canal forum; I will get deluged soon!
I think best advice is claim JSA, declaring themselves homeless and see how it plays out. I’d appreciate your thoughts as you’re obviously more hands on than me right now.
Edit… Thanks Peter
I think I would agree with you Dan. I can’t think of any obvious reasons to claim UC rather than JSA if a claimant is in the (for want of a better expression) housing status uncertain category. Perhaps the position might be different for some clients once the gateway has widened?
DWP were saying that a person can’t claim UC if they don’t have an address. While this may be correct under the gateway criteria in Reg 10 I can’t see a basis for this statement in general.
Does any reader have experience of these client groups and UC. Are DWP picking up these issues or checking housing status at new claim interviews? Are claimants being wrongly directed to UC or JSA on initial enquiry? Are claimants being advised they have claimed the wrong benefit (JSA) and then being required to claim UC (given that in reverse the lobster pot effect applies once a UC claim has reached a certain point even if it wasn’t the appropriate benefit in practice)?
What I noted about today’s presentation was how enthusiastic (in a North Korean sort of way?) local JCP staff are about UC and how they are all looking forward to working with it as job coaches (although they haven’t received their UC training yet). But the JSA claimant count in Oxon is so low (and falling rapidly) perhaps they will actually have the time to provide positive support to claimants (rather than dish out sanctions) - ever the optimist!
[ Edited: 17 Feb 2015 at 03:50 pm by Peter Turville ]OK if its Section 175…..
The question then is.. Are the DWP staff going to get training on Chapter 8 of the homelessness guidance….
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7841/152056.pdf
I dont think this is practical…...
UC advisor….. Yes you are entitled to UC as you have a legal place to moor your houseboat.
Claimant…..But it is sinking…...glug…...
UC advisor….Err…...
This is not going to work is it.
What if you own your houseboat? Are you then exempt because you are a homeowner?
If not, are UC prepared to deal with mooring fees as housing costs?
There is a “canal forum”? I am mesmerised.
There is a “canal forum”? I am mesmerised.
Probably more than dedicated to benefits! There are certainly more glossy monthly mags about canals than benefits. And then consider the number of forums devoted to say railways or football.
Welfare rights really is a minority (serious anorak) interest - get a life!
There is a “canal forum”? I am mesmerised.
Probably more than dedicated to benefits! There are certainly more glossy monthly mags about canals than benefits. And then consider the number of forums devoted to say railways or football.
Welfare rights really is a minority (serious anorak) interest - get a life!
Thought it might have a narrow focus :)
I’ll get me coat as they say!
I once had to buy a magazine about line dancing simply to prove to myself that it existed and that there was more than one angle on it. There really wasn’t.
I shall now crawl back to my hi-fi forums.
What if you own your houseboat? Are you then exempt because you are a homeowner?
If not, are UC prepared to deal with mooring fees as housing costs?
What if it was a barrel. Diogenes chose to live in a barrel. Would that make him a home owner if he bought it and was happy to reside?
I dont know the answer.
This has a passing resmblance to the what is a room (for bedroom tax purposes) debate…..currently doing the rounds.
As I say using 175 doesnt seem practical.
What if you own your houseboat? Are you then exempt because you are a homeowner?
If not, are UC prepared to deal with mooring fees as housing costs?
What if it was a barrel. Diogenes chose to live in a barrel. Would that make him a home owner if he bought it and was happy to reside?I dont know the answer.
This has a passing resmblance to the what is a room (for bedroom tax purposes) debate…..currently doing the rounds.
As I say using 175 doesnt seem practical.
Using that guidance does though… I can see some sense after endlessly debating hereditaments (sorry Sue) when they started charging Council Tax on moorings.
There is a “canal forum”? I am mesmerised.
18787 members…
That’s roughly half the number of boats licensed (on CRT water) at the mo with about 12% residential and roughly half of those with no mooring.
[ Edited: 18 Feb 2015 at 11:32 am by Dan_Manville ]Rent payments
2. “Rent payments” are such of the following as are not excluded by paragraph 3—
...;
(c) mooring charges payable for a houseboat;
This raises the question of whether a ‘narrow boat’ is a “houseboat” or whether that implies a different kind of vessel
There is no definition of houseboat in the regulations so it takes its normal meaning.
That means, I suggest that if it is not a houseboat then, clearly it becomes a tent.
Regulation 1 - Interpretation says
“tent” means a moveable structure that is designed or adapted (solely or mainly) for the purpose of sleeping in a place for any period and that is not a caravan, a mobile home or a houseboat;
That causes problems as
3. The following are excluded from being “rent payments”—
...
(b) payments in respect of a tent or the site on which a tent stands;
and
Service charge payments
7.—(1) “Service charge payments” are payments which—
(a) fall within sub-paragraph (2);
(b) are not excluded by sub-paragraph (3); and
..
(2) The payments falling within this sub-paragraph are payments of amounts which are, in whole or in part—
(a) payments of, or towards, the costs of or charges for providing services or facilities for the use or benefit of persons occupying accommodation; or
(b) fairly attributable to the costs of or charges for providing such services or facilities connected with accommodation as are available for the use or benefit of persons occupying accommodation.
(3) Payments are excluded by this sub-paragraph where—
...
(b) the services or facilities to which the payments relate are provided for the use or benefit of any person occupying—
(i) a tent,
I think that this may cause problems, if not for those living on canals, for those people in motorhomes who move from site to site
[ Edited: 18 Feb 2015 at 11:08 am by Gareth Morgan ]The “houseboat” thing was dealt with in R(H)9/08 and previous where the “houseboat” definition from the ‘71 British Waterways Act was rejected; any boat adapted to live on is arguably a Houseboat for these purposes.
Edit, now I’ve looked at the regs there is still the catch all “payments in respect of a licence or permission to occupy the dwelling” found at para 2(b) Sched 1 UC regs 2013. That caught licence payments in R(H)9/08 so I can certainly put up a scrap…
[ Edited: 18 Feb 2015 at 11:32 am by Dan_Manville ]is there still the catch all “payments in respect of a licence or permission to occupy the dwelling” found at reg 12(1)(b) HB regs? That caught licence payments in R(H)9/08 so if there’s an analogous provision I can certainly put up a scrap.
Rent payments
2. “Rent payments” are such of the following as are not excluded by paragraph 3—
...
(b) payments for a licence or other permission to occupy accommodation;
...BUT ...
Para 3 takes precedence, so the ‘tent’ fails even with a licence or permission.
is there still the catch all “payments in respect of a licence or permission to occupy the dwelling” found at reg 12(1)(b) HB regs? That caught licence payments in R(H)9/08 so if there’s an analogous provision I can certainly put up a scrap.
Rent payments
2. “Rent payments” are such of the following as are not excluded by paragraph 3—
...
(b) payments for a licence or other permission to occupy accommodation;...BUT ...
Para 3 takes precedence, so the ‘tent’ fails even with a licence or permission.
Houseboat wasn’t defined in the Hb regs either so it’s not a tent, it’s a houseboat… R(H)9/08 sorts that.
The meaning of “houseboat”
9. There is no definition of “houseboat” in the housing benefit legislation or regulations. In CH/318/2005 no argument seems to have been raised that the boat in question was not a houseboat and the Commissioner seems to have assumed that it was.
10. Reference has been made to the decision of Mr Commissioner Williams in CH/844/2002. In that case, which concerned a narrow boat moored at a permanent site, the authority had conceded at the tribunal stage that mooring charges were included and that the boat was a houseboat for the purposes of the regulations. The Commissioner did not allow the authority to withdraw that concession at the stage of the appeal to the Commissioner, and decided that case on the basis of regulation 10(1)(d). He did make obiter comments (ie comments on matters that were not necessary to the decision that he made) to the effect that he tended to think that the word “houseboat” was an ordinary English word without a technical meaning and that he did not see why the term should be restricted to a boat without an engine.
11. The Commissioner also referred to the definition of a houseboat used in paragraph 35 of the British Waterways Boat Licence and Permit Conditions: “boats not normally used for cruising which are moored at sites with planning permission for residential use” (the paragraph 35 definition).
12. The authority in the present case were told by British Waterways that the latter have a separate licensing category for houseboats and do not regard narrow boats on which people live as houseboats but as “live-aboard cruisers”. It also asserts that that a wide range of organisations use the paragraph 35 definition. Some of the literature in support of this is reproduced in the file.
...
19. That leaves the question of whether the claimant’s boat was a houseboat. The legislation or regulations could have defined the term but did not. Definitions in other legislation or regulations for different purposes (eg tax liability) are not relevant. The way in which the term is used by various organisations might reflect or inform common usage but cannot define it for the purposes of the law on housing benefit. Neither can the classification for the purposes of licensing, or the operation of other schemes, such as the paragraph 35 definition. It seems to me that for housing benefit purposes “houseboat” is, as Mr Commissioner Williams suggested it might be, an ordinary English word without a technical meaning and that it is a matter of fact in any particular case whether a boat is a “houseboat” in this sense. However, it is difficult to imagine a case in which a reasonable tribunal would conclude that a boat which is fitted out as a dwelling suitable for permanent residence is not a houseboat.
edit; Comm’r Levenson approves Comm’r Williams in CH/844/2002 which was brought by a very dear friend of mine who passed away a couple of years back. Still thinking of you Robin!
[ Edited: 18 Feb 2015 at 03:54 pm by Dan_Manville ]But what if it were a ‘working boat’ (which includes living accomodation) of which there are still a few (and its possible that persons living on and working / trading from a ‘working boat’ might have a low income and need to claim UC!).
I’d guess that their mooring charges would be work expenses.
But what if it were a ‘working boat’ (which includes living accomodation) of which there are still a few (and its possible that persons living on and working / trading from a ‘working boat’ might have a low income and need to claim UC!).
Now it gets even more complex as licence and moorings are overheads that will be offset against any profit thus limiting income. Of course we all know that after a year if profit does not exceed 35 x nmw then then entitlement will end thus UC, over and above all it’s other sins, will doubtless contribute to the further decline of our once great canal system.
Telford will be turning in his grave!
[/quote]
Telford will be turning in his grave![/quote]
Perhaps we need Victorian / Edwardian reformers (living conditions of canal boats families etc) such as John Jones & Mary Ward to reform our welfare reforms?