Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC, couples and rough sleeping
There is an occasional issue which arises in homelessness law where two rough sleepers will present to the council as being a couple who intend to live together. There is often, for various reasons, a reticence on the part of the council to accept these sorts of relationships as being genuine.
One of the factors which homeless departments will frequently bring up is that the members of the ‘couple’ have separate benefit claims.
Isn’t this a bad point? - because two people who have no (or at least no reasonably secure) accommodation can’t really form a ‘household’ in the sense that term is used in the legislation so it’s appropriate for them to be claiming as single people. (Obviously if they were housed together by the Council, then they would need to make a joint claim).
I’d be interested in what others think.
I like this question.
I’m not sure I’d agree that it’s necessarily a bad point - it does tend to suggest they haven’t thrown their lot in together. But on the other hand I would agree that it’s certainly not a conclusive proof that they are not a couple - and I think your argument about the difficulty of forming a household in a shop doorway is hard to counter. At the bottom of this issue is the fact that some local authorities will be looking for evidence to support the decision they want to make, rather than actually carrying out enquiries which are honestly and genuinely aimed at working out what duty the homeless applicant is owed. That and the fact that homelessness departments don’t usually know very much about benefits.
It’s just a good job the DWP doesn’t approach its decision making in the same way.
Edit: What does it say on the UC application? Doesn’t it just ask if you live with anybody?
[ Edited: 25 Mar 2022 at 03:00 pm by Timothy Seaside ]I like this question.
Thanks Timothy, I’d hoped you might.
I suppose yes there are two ways of looking at it. If it is a neutral enquiry, then yes a joint claim might be one factor of many you could point to in order to support the idea that there is.
But I’ve never seen it presented like that - I’ve only ever dealt with cases where the putative couple have been told categorically that they the fact they are not claiming as a couple means that they cannot be treated as a couple for their homelessness application (usually with the consequence that they each end up being individually plonked in hostels rather than in the much more highly prized ‘family’ accommodation).
Housing types have not infrequently suggested to me that this is a defensible approach although I am not convinced. It seems to me that the fact that someone is claiming as a single person is a neutral factor because it would be appropriate however well established their relationship may be. The ‘living together’ caselaw has always, I think, taken it as an absolute minimum that you can’t be living with someone unless you are living under the same roof.
Edit: What does it say on the UC application? Doesn’t it just ask if you live with anybody?
It asks “Do you have a partner?” with the options being “Yes, and we live together” which prompts a joint claim and then “Yes, but we do not live together” and “No, I’m single”, either of which prompt a single claim.
It asks “Do you have a partner?” with the options being “Yes, and we live together” which prompts a joint claim and then “Yes, but we do not live together” and “No, I’m single”, either of which prompt a single claim.
I think I can see how a local authority could argue that two people answering those questions and ending up with two single claims, were most likely single when they made their claim. The difficulty is that you’re not really arguing about whether they are a couple for benefits purposes, but what answers they gave to the plain English questions on their UC claims. But again it’s not conclusive; it’s just evidence.
I’m no expert on homelessness law and what that legislation and case law may say about ‘couples’.
However, to reference whether a homeless couple are a ‘couple’ if they have separate benefit claims would appear to ignore basic principles of benefit law and the meaning of “couple” (for example, for UC WRA s39) which requires that they are living together as members of the same ‘household’. It looks like the same type of ‘short cut’ decision making so beloved of the DWP!
There is a lot of well established case law that addresses the meaning of ‘household’ including Simmons v Pizzey [1979] AC 37 (re: Chiswick Women’s Refuge); Santos v Santos [1972] 2 All ER 247 and CIS/4935/1997 (both re: couples living in the same residential care home). A principle from which is that they are members of the same ‘household’. A ‘household’ being something that can be classified as a ‘domestic establishment’.
Therefore, for benefit purposes a ‘couple’ living together on the streets, in most types of hostel accommodation, sofa surfing or perhaps a tent, are not living in a ‘domestic household’ and, therefore, are not a “couple” for benefit purposes (regardless of their emotional ties etc.).
How do local authorities treat couples under homelessness law if the are married and/or can show that they previously lived together as members of the same household but lost that accommodation for whatever reason? Do they treat them differently to those who may have formed / maintained their relationship outside of a ‘domestic household’ setting?
[ Edited: 30 Mar 2022 at 10:26 am by Peter Turville ]How do local authorities treat couples under homelessness law if the are married and/or can show that they previously lived together as members of the same household but lost that accommodation for whatever reason? Do they treat them differently to those who may have formed / maintained their relationship outside of a ‘domestic household’ setting?
The position in homelessness law is rather different to benefits. To put it shortly, the homelessness application is made by an individual but at various points it is necessary to consider a third party if either they “normally reside” with the applicant as a “member of their family” or alternatively if it would be “reasonable to expect” them to reside with the applicant.
If a couple have been living together and then become homeless, they will typically meet the first test. However if a couple forms after each has already become homeless, they would need to rely on the second test, which requires the council to consider whether it is reasonable to expect them to reside together. As the only challenges to homeless decisions are on error of law grounds, the Council’s views as to what is or is not reasonable are difficult to overturn.
I think the cases referred to support my contention that a couple in this circumstance would not be expected to make a joint claim for benefit purposes and that therefore their failure to do so cannot rationally be a consideration in deciding that it isn’t reasonable to expect them to live together - however, I also take Timothy’s point, which I suppose is that at the end of the day it is necessary to be able to point to something to positively establish the existence of a sufficiently strong relationship rather than just countering arguments going the other way.
The position in homelessness law is rather different to benefits. To put it shortly, the homelessness application is made by an individual but at various points it is necessary to consider a third party if either they “normally reside” with the applicant as a “member of their family” or alternatively if it would be “reasonable to expect” them to reside with the applicant.
I think this is probably the key point. In benefits we’re looking for “couples” and “households”, but these two terms don’t arise in the Housing Act 1996. So in homelessness we’re looking at whether people reside with the applicant, regardless of whether they’re couples or siblings or children or elderly parents. And this is where I think Elliot’s argument is strong - it’s not really right to import DWP considerations of couples and households into Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. But I would suggest it’s not wrong for a local authority to give weight to the fact that somebody has said in a benefits application that they don’t have a partner, or they do have a partner but don’t live with them. Similarly they might point to the fact that an applicant isn’t receiving Child Benefit for a child who isn’t currently living with them as evidence that they can’t reasonably be expected to reside with them. It’s just evidence and the LA should accept any other evidence the applicant provides and weigh it all up in their decision.
I’ll admit I don’t remember having had to argue the point about whether people reside together in homelessness cases. This may well be because the local authorities around here would probably rather accommodate people together as it saves money (because of the type of accommodation that’s available). From what Elliot’s saying I guess it’s different in other arears (presumably cities).