× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

UC Housing Costs & Joint Tenancy; UC, work and delaying a rent restriction

DDP
forum member

The Terrence Higgins Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 102

Joined: 7 September 2010

Not sure I’ve entirely got my head around this one.

I have a service user who states that he is a joint tenant – lives in a 2 bedroom flat, and is single. My service user is aged 29 and occupies one of the bedrooms.

He gets universal credit to include housing costs.

The other joint tenant occupies the other bedroom and he is in employment.

In determining entitlement to UC housing costs the DWP have, as far as I can tell, not treated my service user as only entitled to housing costs at the one-bedroom shared accommodation rate, which is what I think they should have done – this is of financial benefit to him. It is stated in CPAG: Chapter 6: The housing costs element:

The one-bedroom shared accommodation category of dwelling applies if you are a single person (or a member of a couple claiming as a single person), you are under 35 and you are only allowed one bedroom under the size criteria – ie, if you do not have any children or non-dependants and you are not allowed an additional bedroom for any of the reasons on p89. This applies even if you do not live in shared accommodation.

However, on the section on non-dependents in the same chapter it is stated under people who are not non-dependents:

someone who is liable to pay rent or service charges on a commercial basis for the accommodation you occupy, whether this is to you (or your partner, if you are a joint claimant), or to another person – eg, s/he is your lodger or sub-tenant, or a joint tenant.

If the service user is a joint tenant then he cannot be a non-dependent and so he is subject to the one-bedroom shared accommodation rate?

Is this a question of how the DWP are interpreting what is a joint tenancy?

The DWP have apportioned the rent between the two joint tenants and met my service user’s housing costs minus the NDD.

One other thing my service user had never claimed benefits before. He had been in employment up until December of last year and only claimed UC when his employment ended. I note that within HB there was a provision that a person would not be subject to a rent restriction for up to 13 weeks if you could meet the costs of the dwelling when you took them on and you were not entitled to HB in the 52 weeks before your current award of HB. Is there a similar rule for UC housing costs – I have not been able to find it – and would it apply to a person under 35 who would otherwise be subject to the one-bedroom shared accommodation rate.

I hope I’ve explained myself sufficiently well with both queries.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

You are right, there’s no equivalent of the HB 13-week rule in UC.

As for the housing element, yes they have made a bit of a mess of that.  As you say it should be the shared accommodation rate (assuming he is not exempt from that for any reason - SDP etc), without any deduction for non-dependants because as you say a joint tenant is not a non-dependant.  I think you are also right about the reasons why the JT is not a non-dependant - UC has gone for a clever bit of efficient drafting that puts joint tenants and commercial lodgers in the same sentence

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

We’ve seen a few of these where UC have “double counted” - applying two different penalties for a single non-dep.

In this one, it sounds like UC have first halved the rent by apportionment to reflect the fact that the other tenant is expected to pay half the rent - and then it has gone on to deduct a HCC - which also reflects the other tenant’s contribution to the rent. It isn’t too hard to see that this is wrong.

In a case I saw the other week, two brothers live in a 3 bedroom social sector property of which one of them is the tenant. The DWP have first applied a 25% deduction reflecting the fact that the tenant is underoccupying by two rooms (which, of course, he isn’t - because his brother also needs a room) and then it has gone on to apply a HCC in respect of his brother.

Part of the problem is that UC are so opaque about how they have come up with the housing element - so it is awfully difficult to challenge. In my case, the claimant had put a note on his journal querying why his HCE was so much lower than his rent and the response was just something dismissive to the effect that there are a lot of complex rules and it was definitely correct.

DDP
forum member

The Terrence Higgins Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 102

Joined: 7 September 2010

Thanks both for your reply.

A couple of things:

1. If the claimant provided his tenancy agreement to the DWP so that they had proof and could calculate his housing costs correctly why have they made the error of not treating him at the one bedroom shared accommodation rate (their mistake works to the claimant’s advantage as far as I can tell). Is this a fault in the way the computer system works with housing costs? A manual error?

2. Elliott, I’m not sure I understand what you have said or that it is relevant to the claimant’s circumstances in this case. What is an HCC?

You state: In this one, it sounds like UC have first halved the rent by apportionment to reflect the fact that the other tenant is expected to pay half the rent - and then it has gone on to deduct a HCC - which also reflects the other tenant’s contribution to the rent. It isn’t too hard to see that this is wrong.

Isn’t the calculation wrong because the claimant should be treated as only entitled to one bedroom shared accommodation rate for the reasons given in my original post.

Even if this were not the case I’m not sure I understand your paragraph above. How should the calculation work with 2 joint tenants who are not subject to the one bedroom shared accommodation rate, both of whom are single, where one works and both were 35 or over, living in a 2 bedroom property.

Sorry but I’m getting a little confused here.

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 539

Joined: 20 September 2018

DDP - 06 March 2019 10:06 AM

What is an HCC?

HCC = NDD

The Non Dependant Deduction in HB becomes the Housing Costs Contribution in UC (although in practice they’re not exactly equivalent).

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

HCC is the UC term for what we traditionally know as a non-dependant deduction (it stands for Housing Costs Contribution).

The answer to your first question is, sadly, that the knowledge of DWP staff is not up to the requirements for the job and the chances of getting an accurate assessment in this type of case are about as high (and as random) as throwing a double six in Monopoly.

I think the case Elliot is describing is a social sector tenancy where the housing element should be subject to either bedroom tax or HCC but not both.  Your client is a private tenant and should therefore be subject to either shared accommodation LHA (correct), or HCC (wrong), but not both (super-wrong).

DDP
forum member

The Terrence Higgins Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 102

Joined: 7 September 2010

Thanks Timothy. I guessed as much.

If anyone can proffer an explanation to my further queries that would be great.

DDP
forum member

The Terrence Higgins Trust

Send message

Total Posts: 102

Joined: 7 September 2010

Thanks again HB Anorak.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

HB Anorak - 06 March 2019 10:23 AM

I think the case Elliot is describing is a social sector tenancy where the housing element should be subject to either bedroom tax or HCC but not both.  Your client is a private tenant and should therefore be subject to either shared accommodation LHA (correct), or HCC (wrong), but not both (super-wrong).

Yes that is what I am going for. I am sorry if I have confused you further by drawing the comparison.

 

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 539

Joined: 20 September 2018

If the two joint tenants do not form a household then the rule in HB is that they are both treated as having the shared accommodation LHA rate, regardless of their age (unless they have exclusive occupation of at least two rooms). I believe the same rule applies in UC as it’s about LHA criteria.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

UC is actually different in this respect. See paragraphs 27 and 28 of Schedule 4 to the UC Regs. Claimants over the age of 35 never have the shared accomodation rate applied.

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 539

Joined: 20 September 2018

Charles - 06 March 2019 11:17 AM

UC is actually different in this respect. See paragraphs 27 and 28 of Schedule 4 to the UC Regs. Claimants over the age of 35 never have the shared accomodation rate applied.

Thank you, Charles. I am happy to be corrected!

JojoMitchell
forum member

Disability Law Service, London

Send message

Total Posts: 290

Joined: 10 July 2017

OK, change of tack slightly.  2 joint tenants, one of the joint tenant’s daughter lives with them in a 3 bed private rented house.  All claim UC.  How does the HCC for the daughter work? 

THANKS!!

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

The non dependant belongs completely to one of the joint tenants: bedroom and HCC. The other one is assessed as a single JT with no non dependant. First come, first served

JojoMitchell
forum member

Disability Law Service, London

Send message

Total Posts: 290

Joined: 10 July 2017

Thank you for confirming!