Housing costs help

Am I confused?

I had a case last week. Mum (tenant) rents from social landlord and has accrued £1800 rent arrears (bedroom tax) despite receiving HB throughout. She has no income for some months (going through an ESA appeal and wouldn’t claim JSA).  She went to a possession hearing. Mum still has no income (wants to appeal to UT - awaiting Statement of Reasons). The client said that the judge adjourned for 28 days for mum to seek advice regarding the daughter getting housing costs as part of her (the daughter’s) Universal Credit claim.

Someone from the social landlord has suggested that the daughter (receiving UC) can claim housing costs. I think that this is what the client means rather than the judge indicating anything to do with UC; more likely is that the judge wanted the client to get Housing advice.

Initially, I did not think that the daughter getting housing costs was possible as I believed that an equivalent of Regulation 9 of the Housing Benefit Regulation might apply regarding liabilities of former non-dependents and liabilities created to take advantage of the Housing Benefit Scheme.

However, on further examination, I discovered that Jobcentre Plus can treat someone as liable. Advisernet 9.2.12.20 states “Jobcentre Plus sometimes treat you as if you’re liable to pay housing costs, even though you’re not. For example, they do this in certain cases if someone else is actually liable or you’re not currently paying anything.”

In addition Regulation 25 (3) [A BELOW] and Part 1 Schedule 2 Paragraph 2 [B BELOW] of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 appear to allow the proposed inclusion of housing costs in the daughter’s UC entitlement:

[A - REG 25 (3)]

“(3) The circumstances of the liability to make the payments must be such that—
(a)the claimant (or either joint claimant)—
(i)has a liability to make the payments which is on a commercial basis, or
(ii)is treated under Part 1 of Schedule 2 as having a liability to make the payments; and
(b)none of the provisions in Part 2 of that Schedule applies to treat the claimant (or either joint claimant) as not being liable to make the payments.”

[B - PART 1 SCHEDULE 2 PARA 2]

“Failure to pay by the person who is liable
2.—(1)  A claimant is to be treated as liable to make payments where all of the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (2) are met.
(2)  These are the conditions–
(a)  the person who is liable to make the payments is not doing so;
(b)  the claimant has to make the payments in order to continue occupation of the accommodation;
(c)  the claimant’s circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to expect them to make other arrangements;
(d)  it is otherwise reasonable in all the circumstances to treat the claimant as liable to make the payments.”

This is the first UC case of any substance I have dealt with. Have I got this wrong?

I don’t think this would work, although it’s an ingenious idea.

The provision to treat one person as liable for rent that another person is liable to pay in real life is designed for cases where the tenant is in prison, say, or absent from home long term for some other reason and therefore not in a position to claim benefit themselves.  What you are asking DWP to do here is agree that HB and UC between them should treat two different people as liable for the same costs at the same time.  The only way I could see this being agreed to would be to treat the mother and daughter as liable for shares of the full rent, but this won’t achieve anything in practice because each would be subject to the bedroom tax on her share and the result would end up the same as now.

I cannot see DWP agreeing to allow multiple claimants to get benefit for the same rent in order that the sum of their entitlements ends up covering the full amount.

The social landlord in question isn’t Thirteen/Erimus is it NAI? If so you are welcome to give me a ring and I will help you get to the bottom of the rent arrears history? Is the mum the tenant and is she getting full HB? If so why has the daughter even been brought into it unless there is a non Dep deduction for the daughter? Is the issue that inspire of full HB the mum is in no position to repay rent arrears because no income?

In spite

In my view.

First priority is to try and stop the eviction.

If it was me I would try the obvious stuff first.  Eg Check HB is in payment (make sure it was not stopped when she came off JSA) put in a DHP form showing the court papers and an income expenditure sheet etc ask for a limited period of time so she can get her ESA reinstated or downsize.

Find out if your client will downsize, if she will go back to the landlord and see if they will halt the eviction, and consider moving her to smaller, knocking the arrears of any incentive scheme for downsizing. At least if you approach the landlord with solutions this will look better in court.

Make sure she has representation in court. etc/etc

Dependent on her vulnerability and age of dtr she might have a priority need for housing in terms of homelessness legislation.

I was a tad confused by your post so apologies if I have misunderstood.

Thanks for all your responses.