Universal Credit - joint tenancy - no recourse to public funds

The guidance is that where there is a couple that have mixed immigration statuses, one member of the couple having no recourse to public funds, the eligible partner is able to make a single claim for Universal Credit. This would mean that no additional funds would be paid in respect of the ineligible partner, therefore no breach to the recourse to public funds condition would occur.

However, it becomes more complicated when the couple are joint tenants of a rented property in terms of claiming the housing element of Universal Credit. There is a chance in this case that additional benefit could be paid through the housing element for the ineligible partner, which would likely result in a breach of the recourse to public funds condition. This could in turn have consequences for the ineligible partner and their right to remain in the UK, it could certainly raise a red flag at the Home Office.

My query relates to how this should be addressed and what advice should be given to people looking to claim Universal Credit in these circumstances. It is not always going to be possible for someone to take specialist immigration advice. and we don’t have access to this locally.

I think the benefit and immigration rules are reasonably joined up here.  The way I read the UC Regs, there is one situation in which having a partner, as opposed to being single, can increase the housing element and that is when the claimant is young enough to be a “specified renter” (single under 35).  Where one member of a couple has an immigration status that excludes him/her from UC, the housing element is determined as if the claimant were single, which means no additional public funds are paid on account of the partner being present.

The source for this is:

- UC Reg 3(3) is the general rule that the other member of the couple may claim UC as a single person (in particular Reg 3(3)(e) refers to immigration status)
- Para 28(2) of Schedule 4 says that a member of a couple claiming as a single person is a “specified renter” if under 35

Therefore I think the advice should be: go ahead and claim, the scheme is designed to prevent the partner from breaching their immigration conditions.

Housing Benefit is a different matter …

PS - edited to add: if the partner with no recourse requires overnight care, which could also trigger a higher housing element, I don’t think s/he gets to be a “renter” in the first place because s/he isn’t a “claimant”.  And s/he most lilely wouldn’t have PIP either.

Thank you - that clarifies what we thought but specialist advice we have obtained thus far had been slightly woolly so was making us nervous!  We will proceed with an application and see where it takes us

Similar situation - single claimant of UC with parents as non-deps - parents have NRPF. (Actual case).
Would the fact of their presence - meaning the HCE is based on full rent (rather than a rent reduced by bedroom tax) -mean that this “increase” in the HCE is equivalent to them having recourse to public funds?
Or is the fact that they are non-deps and not the claimant mean this is irrelevant?
I’m thinking the latter, but there’s still a niggley worry in the back of my mind.

Their presence may not actually increase HCE if they attract non-dep deductions. Deductions are £72.16 per month each which may well be more than the bedroom tax would have been.