Caught in UC lobster pot for HB but not for TCs?

I saw a client with rent arrears who seems to have been caught in the UC lobster pot for HB but not for TCs. 

Client has 3 children. Was living in hostel in full service area, not receiving HB but was receiving TCs. 

She then claimed UC and was paid the standard single person allowance and no housing cost element for period 24 May to 23 June 2017. Client said she realised she made a mistake and then stopped her UC claim and reclaimed WTC and CTC which (acc to HMRC) was paid up to 23 May and then started again from 24 July.  (The client was rather vague about what made her claim UC in the first place and how she managed to reclaim TCs again and she also says that the gap without TCs was much longer) 

In July 2017, she was moved to temp accommodation located in a live service area. She made two unsuccessful attempts to claim HB (from the local authority housing her), in July and in Sept 2017. The claim was refused on both occasion, on the grounds that client needed to claim UC for her housing costs as she had received a UC payment within the last 6 months.  Client does not seem to have appealed either of the decisions.

I can’t understand how she managed to get her TCs back but that she could not get any housing costs paid without giving up her TC claim again and making a UC claim? 

She would not have met the gateway conditions for UC in the live service.  I looked up her postcode on universalcreditinfo.net (see below). But I am not sure what is meant by ‘and are able to make a re-claim for UC’, does this mean satisfy all requirements except the number of children? 

“Please note: Until 31 January 2019, if you are responsible for three or more children, you will generally not be able to claim universal credit but will still be able to make a new claim for tax credits and other benefits unless you -

have claimed universal credit in the previous 6 months and are able to make a re-claim for universal credit; “

[The client is receipt of HB now, since March 2018]

If she was still in the full service area when she reclaimed Tax Credits then I agree with you it does not look correct that she was able to get back onto Tax Credits as she would have fallen within the exemption that allows recent ex-UC claimants with more than two children to claim UC.  I cannot see anything in the UC Regs that requires the earlier UC award to have lasted for any minimum length of time - one single AP would be enough to enable a UC re-claim as far as I can see.

As for HB and temp acc, the Council has made a very common mistake there.  In a live service area, anyone who did not satisfy the gateway conditions at that time (summer last year) was not able to make a new claim for UC unless they fell into two very niche exceptions:

- split up with partner while getting UC within the past month, or
- UC ended because earnings were too high within the past six months (strictly speaking doesn’t even require a UC claim: UC restarts when DWPM is notified that earnings have stopped/reduced)

Those people and only those people could reclaim live service UC without satisfying the gateway (still can in fact) and could not claim legacy benefits even if they wanted to.  Note in particular that in live service areas there is no general prohibition on reclaiming legacy benefits after being on UC within the last six months, as many councils wrongly believe there is.  The only thing that stops you claiming HB in a live service area is if you are a “UC claimant” as defined in Reg 6 of the UC(TP) Regs 2014.  That definition refers to people who are on UC, have a UC claim, appeal or recon pending, or belong to one of those two niche categories mentioned above.  Therefore the refusal of HB in July and September last year was an official error by the Council and the two decisions can be revised at any time.  It’s in their own interest to revise those decisions because they have to pay for the temp acc, this is free government money for them in the form of HB subsidy.

Thanks for your response, this is very helpful.