Housing element failed for licencee

Hi,
A client changed address earlier this year and UC didn’t update her housing costs.  We contacted the Partnership Manager and they agreed to look into it.  Today the client has received a message that states “FEEDBACK ON PROOF OF HOUSING COST : HOUSING COSTS APPLICATION REJECTED AS YOU FAILED TO SUPPLY A PROOF OF RESIDENCY IN ADDITION TO YOUR PROOF OF LIABILITY” 

There is also this message on her journal:

YOUR HOUSING COSTS CANNOT BE PAID BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHERE YOU LIVE AND HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN RENT.  IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS EVIDENCE, PLEASE DECLARE A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES AGAIN”

The client provided her licence agreement so can anyone advise what is actually needed for UC to accept her housing costs or if yet again they are making it all up!

Thank you

I am afraid they stuck rigidly to checking whether all 3 criteria have been satisfied: liability (tick! licence agreement), occupation- inflexible work coach would require a separate proof of address, and finally, the payments which the client makes must be “rent payments”, which could be deduced from the licence.

This is what drives me crazy; the constant reporting change of circumstances. The process, questions and the lay out can actually be quite confusing. It is certainly not user friendly to anyone with limited digital skills or language barrier. Have you ever seen a Journal with virtually 20 or more attempts of reporting “people who live with you” or “housing cost”? I have.

If your client has another document to prove her address she should ask for a facility to upload it or make an appt with the work coach and submit it to them.

Your client could also write a message in the Journal; “I have submitted evidence of liability and the rent amount. This information can be found in my licence agreement. The licence also has the address which I occupy. This is all you should require to approve my housing costs”.

I take the view that if your client has provided their evidence of housing costs, and UC have not accepted it, then it’s time for a mandatory reconsideration request.

Although, if you have already asked them to reconsider it and they have refused, then arguably you could go straight to appeal - the fact that they haven’t called it a MRN doesn’t change the fact that they have considered whether to revise the decision - so Reg 7(2) of the D&A Regs should be satisfied.