× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

SDP and accession of tenancy.

Terry Craven
forum member

Hope Advice Centre, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 85

Joined: 6 May 2018

I have clients a brother and sister who gained the tenancy of their mothers home on her death in 2014. They became joint tenants. One works full time, the other receives ESA awarded shortly afterwards and has done throughout. However, no SDP has been paid to her.
I put in a revision request for the SDP. After 6 months and a MR request the DWP has refused the claim on the grounds that they became joint tenants after being non dependants and as such fall to be considered non dependants and no SDP is payable. Any comments because I have never come across this before?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

See reg 71 ESA Regs 2008:

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), this paragraph applies to—

(a)a person who jointly occupies the claimant’s dwelling and who is either—
[...]
(ii)jointly liable with the claimant or the claimant’s partner to make payments to a landlord in respect of the person’s occupation of that dwelling;
[...]

(5) Where a person is a close relative of the claimant or the claimant’s partner, paragraph (4) applies to that person only if the claimant’s, or the claimant’s partner’s, co-ownership, or joint liability to make payments to a landlord in respect of occupation of the dwelling arose either before 11th April 1988 or, if later, on or before the date on which the claimant or the claimant’s partner first occupied the dwelling in question.

“Close relative” is inclusive of a sibling - reg 2.

In your case the non-claimant falls under reg 71(4) which would normally sufficient to prevent the person being classed as a non-dependent. However as they are a ‘close relative’, the effect of reg 71(5) is that there is a need to consider when the liability for rent arose.

It does appear that the correct decision has been reached in this case.