Bedroom tax and additional bedrooms - UC system error?

Have come across an issue and I am half-convinced by DWP’s explanation, but wanted to see if anyone else was aware of it.

Couple occupying a three-bed social sector property and are entitled to a bedroom each under UC Regs because of disability.  DWP is making managed payment to landlord.  Landlord queried why the managed payment is 100% of rent and not 86% as there should still be 14% bedroom tax - was concerned about them or the claimants being hit with overpayment bill in the future.

My first hunch was that it is a payment issue: full rent being diverted to landlord out of a total UC award that was calculated by reference to 86% of the rent, leaving slightly less than full living cost elements to be paid to the claimants.  This would be legally correct and for some claimants probably not a bad idea.  But UC case manager has said it is a system issue and that the housing element is being calculated incorrectly in cases where:

- the “normal” bedroom entitlement under para 10(1) of Schedule 4 leaves at least two spare bedrooms, and
- there is entitlement to at least one additional bedroom under para 12, but
- after adding bedrooms under para 12 there would still be one spare bedroom and a 14% bedroom tax.

Case manager saying the system cannot handle that - either it slaps on 25% bedroom tax, or no bedroom tax at all.  I can see how the programmers might have made an error like this - if they assumed that entitlement to rooms under para 12 provides exemption from the bedroom tax completely and set up the system in that way, they would get the correct result in cases where para 12 provides enough extra bedrooms to eliminate the bedroom tax.  That is probably the most common para 12 outcome.  If the system doesn’t look at para 12 as part of the size criteria but sees it as conditions for exemption from the bedroom tax, it will behave as the CM says.

But I am suspicious about this coming to light in a managed payment case and I am not ruling out this being a payment issue rather than a calculation issue.  If it is a calculation issue, though, it means DWP is knowingly overpaying some claimants and happily continuing to do so in the knowledge that they will always be able to claw it back.  This would be quite a scandal and if it becomes public knowledge I feel they would have a strong moral obligation not to recover overpayments.

I have asked to see a calculation statement, which should clear up whether it is a payment issue or a calculation issue.  Anyone else familiar with this?

All I would say is that I have never seen an APA MPTL where we were receiving full HC if there was any reduction for non-dependants or bedroom tax. We always get the reduced amount. Until last summer they couldn’t even cover full rent by MPTL where they had accepted a tenant should be treated as liable for full rent in cases where a joint tenant was absent - they had to pay half by MPTL and then the tenant had to pay the rest over themselves. So I would be very surprised if this was a payment issue rather than a calculation issue.

Latest.
We’ve been copied into a journal entry from a work coach which suggests there would be no recoverable overpayment but it would be good to get official confirmation of this.
I’ve sent an FOI request but wondering if anyone on here has seen anything?
” The UC journal entry said – Hello xxxx After your welfare officer querying housing I have checked and T/L and you should only be entitled to two bedrooms. I have discussed with our technical team and they are aware of this issue of build paying full housing. This has been raised and our Policy team are aware – but have advised cils that they are leaving it to allow full entitlement and when they do come to any correction no-one will be asked for any back payment so no overpayment should occur.”

Most recent response to FOI review request just issued and is not particularly helpful - no reference to whether affected overayment cases, before system error was fixed, have a chance of write off - see also our write up of the FOI today.

Yep - that was my 3rd attempt to get the facts out of them!
It’s a sort of admission they shouldn’t have said they weren’t going to recover the overpayments, but no admission they were wrong to say the glitch has been sorted, nor any idea of when it will be.
Frustrating