Mixed age couple - cb income too high for UC for housing costs.

Mixed age couple where SP and a cbESA award at £170.90(I’m guessing this is TP from an earlier IB/IS etc award. Not something I know much about, but it doesn’t seem too relevant (?)).

Lost his HB when he turned pension age.

Their unearned income eats any prospects of financial gain from claiming UC - they would gain a bit from housing costs and carer element, but lose more from their current CTC award. About £13/week worse off.

However, it would open the door to apply for a DHP. In addition to their own circumstances, they have a disabled family member that wants to come live with them for care.

Any thoughts/experiences of this situation?

I think the temporary/discretionary nature of DHP makes it too risky to move on that basis alone if they stand to lose 13/week. It seems if/when this additional person moves in, there wouldn’t be a non dep deduction for them so it might make more sense to claim UC at that point?

Also non-zero risk of them having an old CTC overpayment that appears from the depths which acts as a deduction which throws off the better off calculation.

So they would want a DHP because their UCHE is less than they were getting when they were on HB?

They would need to claim UC and be receiving a Housing element in that award to be eligible for a DHP. But being eligible doesn’t mean one would be awarded.
Much depends on their total income, whether they have any savings, etc , what income non deps have, whetherther they have anuy income that is disregarded for benefit purposes, whether the property has been specifically adapted for them/ a member of their household to live in etc .

DHP are generally short term measures usually -  and being worse off under UC than HB isnt a particularly exceptional set of circumstances.
A DHP would look at the whole household - so if there are non deps the council would likely argue that its reasonable for the non deps to make a contribution to the housing/living costs. (as they would have to if living in their own place) - regardelss of whether a non dep charge would apply ( so a blind xcustomer applies for a DHP and has a working non dep living with them, ibn HB no non dep chages as customer blimnd, bbut in awarding a DHP we’d suggest that a non dep should be paying something towards the rent/bills) 

DHP funding is limited, so if a DHP were awarded when they first applied,  there is no guarantee that a further award would be given next financial year, and your customers would likely have to re-apply for it.

I think it would be unwise to suggest claiming if its goin to make them worse off on the off change a short term DHP might be awarded.

Sorry, I posed the problem a bit backwards yesterday. I echo most of your concerns.
In real terms they are better off as a mixed age couple than they were anyway. They’ve racked up significant rent arrears, but that’s ostensibly because they failed to appreciate that they now have to pay rent from their own accounts.

Fundamentally the purpose of any changes to their benefits would be specifically to enable their family member to stay with them. He’s currently in a mental health institution and needs a safe place to stay.

I think it fits the DHP guidelines - it would enable someone to stay in society, where otherwise the only option would be an institution, with the cost to the public purse considerably greater.
Even if a (full) DHP was only awarded for a short term, it would cover a much longer period of their reduced entitlement.

But, unless anyone has any positive indication that this might be successful, I’m reluctant to give that advice, given the risks.
Or, if anyone had any suggestions for alternative solutions?

Another that has occurred to me is to secure a joint tenancy elsewhere so the ND could claim UC HCE in his own right (the current house would get overcrowded soon once their son gets older, so doubt their HA would be open to this option there - contrivancy etc aside.

Im struggling to understand now - would the DHP be to cover any non dep charges that they would only have if they claimed UC anyway?  Or do they want a DHP for rent arreras from when they didnt realise they had to pay their owen rent?

If the non dep charge for an individual is only about £80 a month - so even if the non dep werent working and legacy benefits/UC i think youd struggle to get most LA’ds to see that was unaffordable to the non dep to pay ( esp if non dep also getting PIP) was on UC .

rent arreras cannot be covered for any period where HB or UCJHER wasn’t in payment -0 see Gargett
so if they have rent arrears because they didnt realise theyd need to pay their rent - they won’t be eligible for a DHP for those arrears.
example
HB ended 15 JUne as turned pension age .
arrears of £500 a month accrued July - October,4 month = £2000
. UCHE of £500 awarded from November, with income tapers of £300

A DHP would ONLY award from November, it couldn’t award any amount relating to July- October as there wasn’t a qualifying benefit in payment.
From Nove most it could do is to award £500 a month ( capped at the housing element) but much more liokely to makle a smaller award (if any) as couiple have income (and possibly a non dep who can help out too)

It probably wouldnt go unnoticed by the assessor that they are better off on UC thanthey were obn HB, so seems harder to explain why they need an ongoing DHP

Im not entirely sure what they want the DHP for now

Client gets PIP DL, so no NDD/HCCs.
I know DHPs can’t cover rent arrears unless there was an award of HB/HCE.

The question was whether anyone has positive experiences of councils awarding long term DHPs to cover ongoing rent payments - in this case where the purpose of it would be to enable a couple to shoulder the additional financial burden of caring for a disabled family member, and where the shortfall is due to excess cb benefits (and their legacy entitlement would have been higher than on UC).

Sorry for wasting your time with a badly worded question. I wonder if I’ve improved it now 😊

the only long term/ongoing award that tend to get ongoing, annual approval is where the property has been adapted to meet the customers/household disabnilitiy requirements
if non ddepo moves in, thhe non dep will presumably have some income ( UC, PIP etc) but no non dep charges
t
the only shortfall would be income tapers from excess income
And ythe ciouple are better off now than they were p[reviously
I think its highly unlikley they’d be awarded any DHP, let alone a long term one.

I dont see it would be a contrivance problem if family member moved in and they all moved a a larger property as joint tenants, although any housing element would be capped at % share of the rent.