Forum Home → Discussion → Residence issues → Thread
UC claimant with parents as non-deps - parents have no recourse to public funds
If a UC claimant has their parents living with them meaning they are using a bedroom that would otherwise be “spare”, does the fact that the HCE is not reduced (because of their presence) cause any problems for the UC award?
I’m thinking not because the claimant has an OK immigration status- but just checking?
Any other issues I haven’t thought of?
Thanks
OK…. either this has other people baffled too, or it’s such a daft question that it doesn’t justify a response….anyone want to put me out of my misery?
Sorry - had missed it first time round and not seen that hadn’t been replied to!
As I understand it they will just be non-dependants and a two lots of housing cost contribution will be deducted assuming they don’t get any of the benefits due to having NRPF? Or unless your client is exempt from having housing cost contributions applied?
No worries! Yes I’ve checked they definitely count as non-deps so there will be 2 deductions from the claimant’s UC. It was just that with the non-deps having NRPF, I had a niggly feeling that them “filling a bedroom” and thereby potentially increasing the claimant’s UC from what it would have been if they weren’t there, that that could somehow be seen as them having recourse and damage their future claims for ILR…. but I don’t think so as it’s the claimant’s benefit that increases, not theirs. ???
Oh sorry I missed your point! Is the reduction that would have been applied due to the extra room more than 2 HCCs?
I’m not an immigration expert so wouldn’t like to say for sure on whether it impacts on their NRPF - anyone else out there?
Probably not - but more of a matter of whether it would be an issue in principle…
No worries! Yes I’ve checked they definitely count as non-deps so there will be 2 deductions from the claimant’s UC. It was just that with the non-deps having NRPF, I had a niggly feeling that them “filling a bedroom” and thereby potentially increasing the claimant’s UC from what it would have been if they weren’t there, that that could somehow be seen as them having recourse and damage their future claims for ILR…. but I don’t think so as it’s the claimant’s benefit that increases, not theirs. ???
It’s not that straightforward, unfortunately.
The test is whether additional public funds are paid in consequence of the person’s presence - they don’t need to receive them directly or need to be the claimant.
Take the case of someone in low-paid work who is in receipt of HB. Their entitlement is assessed on the basis of their income from earnings (a fixed sum) in reference to their applicable amount - let us assume they are over 25, so that will be £73.10 for a single person. If they are then joined by their spouse with a NRPF condition, the applicable amount changes to £114.85, with the result that the HB award increases - additional public funds have been paid out in consequence of the spouse’s presence, but the spouse hasn’t claimed or been paid anything.
Your client’s situation is similar. In fact, if your client’s parents have been granted leave on the basis of your client having given a maintenance undertaking (a distinct possibility) - i.e. an undertaking to maintain and accommodate - then the potential problem becomes even more apparent. A maintenance undertaking is an undertaking that I can maintain and accommodate my family members without relying on public funds to do so…...
Thanks PC - I was being too optimistic, thinking that where it’s non-deps the “distance from claimant” being sort of further than a partner (if you see what I mean) would make it a different situation from the sort of circumstance you described.
However I’m guessing as Daphne suggested if the ndd is higher than the “loss of bedroom tax” it won’t be an issue.