Housing benefit, Universal Credit and prisoners - who pays what?? 

Any help on this will be appreciated. Apologies for the length and the dates - my brain is frazzled and finds everything to be relevant to the case.

Client (29/9/1983) was released from custody on 22/12/2017.

He bounced off sofas and streets until signing a PRS tenancy on 24/5/2018. He applied for HB on 24/5/2018.

He went back into custody on 19/6/2018. HB informed him that he needs to apply for UC in July. Client’s LL applied for UC. We don’t know what happened to this claim, but it is unlikely to have been successful.

He was released on 29/9/2018. He applied for UC on 18/10/2018. He attended his standard ID interview, provided tenancy agreement, agreed to claimant commitments. He claimed £200 as advance payment. His support worker wrote four journal entries insisting that his rent be paid to the LL (who hadn’t been paid since 24/8/2018) as client has a substance misuse problem. Workcoach replied on 26/10 informing that APA-MPTL is being processed.

3 appointments (31/10, 1/11, 5/11) were booked for client and rescheduled by the support worker. The journal does not specify what these appointments were for - the support worker rescheduled as client was (1) accepting furniture delivery which was rescheduled (2) rescheduled furniture deliver (3) GP appointment. Client was due to go to the JCP on 7/11.

He went back into custody on 6/11.

UC said they will close his claim as he was not in receipt of HE.

LL still not paid. (£350pm since 24/8/2018).

My questions:
(1) who is responsible for paying his rent from 24/8/2018 to 29/9/2018? HB? UC? Noone?
(2) Reg 19 says claimant needs to be entitled to UC where calculation of his award includes a HE amount. DWP says he needs to be in receipt of UC. I am arguing on the basis of the distinction between the two. Am I on the right track here?
(3) If I am on the right track, how can I prove that his award included a calculation of HE?
(4) If I am on the wrong track, how do I proceed?

Between his workcoach, support worker, probation officer and the landlord, I have managed to patch together the above but lost pieces of my brain along the way.

Any advice is welcome!

HB would have ended as soon as it appeared that his absence from home was going to exceed the maximum time allowed - which depends whether he was on remand or serving a sentence (recalled while on licence counts as serving a sentence).  If he was serving a sentence the limit is 13 weeks, otherwise it’s 52.

The first absence began on 19 June and ended on 29 September - more than 13 weeks so it is possible that HB correctly ended at some point during that absence - perhaps as early as the Monday following 19 June depending on what was known at that time about the likely duration of the absence.  There might be something to look at there: was HB stopped prematurely, should it have been paid for longer?  Could the decision ending HB be revised?  Maybe.

The first UC claim made during his first spell in custody was certain to fail: it is possible to receive UC for housing costs while in prison for an expected period of no more than six months, but only if UC including a housing element was already in payment before the absence began.  It wasn’t, so that’s a non-starter.  Even worse, by claiming UC he might have put the kibosh on the HB award, if HB was still in payment then or should it successfully be reinstated in accordance with the above paragraph.  A UC claim normally ends HB two weeks later.  Depending how far that UC claim progressed - as far as satisfying s4(1)(a) to (d) or not - it might still be possible to reinstate HB beyond the date of the UC claim.  But that would require two considerable obstacles to be overcome:

- absence at all times within the limit allowed for HB, and
- UC claim failed at preliminary stage without satisfying s4(1)(a) to (d) (not too young, not too old, not a student, present and habitually resident in GB).

In summary, UC at any time before 29 September is a lost cause; HB a slight possibility.

From September onwards, there is a slight chance of HB continuing up to two weeks beyond 18 October, but that relies on getting it reinstated for the period of absence as discussed above - probably a long shot but worth looking into.  Thereafter, UC is the only show in town.  The award should include a housing element from 18 October, but we have the awkward timing of the second period in custody to deal with: he went back to prison during the first month on 6 November.  Conventional received wisdom has it that all changes of circumstance during the first month have effect from the beginning of the first AP, which would mean no existing housing element prior to his return to custody and therefore no UC at all for the whole month.  I am not sure this is supported by the Regulations, because the rule about changes being retrospective governs the date of a superseding decision under the D&A Regs … but this was a new claim with nothing to supersede.  I don’t think the Regulations have an answer for that.  Realistically, DWP are going to apply the whole month approach which means no UC (and therefore no housing element) consequent on the October claim.  If the UC claim could be backdated to 29 September, or at least to 6 October or earlier, that would leave a clear month before he went back to prison and would enable UC housing costs to be paid.  The only ground for backdating that might be relevant is “illness” - that might be worth a shot.  The UC claim in any case required a decision with a right of MR/appeal, they cannot just “close” it and forget about it … and it seems as if he is still in time to pursue the MR which could include the backdating matter.

Hope that gives you something to chew on

….

Thanks, HB! That reply is very helpful. I’m still going to need stronger coffee to process it, but it really clarifies a lot

HB Anorak - 23 November 2018 08:59 AM

HB would have ended as soon as it appeared that his absence from home was going to exceed the maximum time allowed

Sorry I forgot to mention - HB was never paid.

Not too late to challenge that then - as with UC, if he claimed HB he was entitled to a proper decision which could still be appealed out of time now.

When did this postcode go full service?

November 2017 - He was in full service when he applied for HB.

We don’t know who advised him to apply for HB. It is likely that it was the probation officer because of the email (sent to HB on 23/10/2018) as below:

In my role as Mr X’s Probation Housing Lead, I am writing on his behalf to request that your recent decision not to Pay (Landlord), Housing Benefit from the 24/5/18 till this day present when he attended Local Library as Stamped . I have enclosed in this letter additional information that I hope will allow you to make a favourable decision on Mr X application.

I’ve asked Probation Officer what “Stamped” means. Hoping its a letter of some sort that says apply for HB that we can use to show he was given wrong information.

OK, that changes my reply rather fundamentally.  I had assumed it was a live service HB claim that failed on its merits, but clearly he cannot be entitled to HB at all.

That certainly simplifies things: you have one possibly viable UC claim in October to focus on as far as I can see, and that’s it.

My fault - I wasn’t clear. It was a key point and I should’ve mentioned it.

It certainly simplifies though! So that’s something…