× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

APA and housing element paid to tenant

JoW
forum member

Financial inclusion manager - Wythenshawe Community Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 343

Joined: 7 September 2012

We have a couple of cases where we have been receiving a managed payment (as the tenants had rent arrears) but due to an error on DWP part for no apparent reason they reverted to paying the housing element to the tenant without revising their APA decision or notifying us of this. We have complained and requested we are paid the missing managed payment but they have responded that as tenant was aware they were getting the housing element in their award letter they do not have to pay us. The tenants have spent the money.

Has anyone had any success in arguing this?

hbinfopeter
forum member

Director - HBINFO, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 101

Joined: 29 July 2010

In similar Housing Benefit cases, the Local Government Ombudsman has awarded compensation ....I wonder if the DWP complaints procedure will as generous.

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

Similar experiences with APAs ‘dropping off’ due to ‘glitches’ and other seemingly random reasons.

This thread touches on the likelihood of compensation being awarded ...

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11398/

I have to say this is not something we are actively pursuing for reasons of the time to commit to processes and favouring doing something to resolve the situation in the here and now and ensuring the next payment comes to the correct payee.

Ridiculous situation that the process designed to protect vulnerable tenants from eviction can fail so easily due to such a variety of glitches and errors at the DWP end.  If only they had tested it in pilot areas to get it working first ..... oh hang on ....

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

A couple of responses from the UC team on issues about APAs that I have passed on to them (I think they may have come from you Sarah?) -

You asked: APA requests in full service where payment to customer expected within the next 2 weeks, can a ‘hold’ be put on housing element to prevent payment to customer in cases of high arrears – at the moment they are just being paid as APA not been processed

Our response: On Suspension or “hold” of Housing Costs - A Universal Credit award is made up of various elements.  However, once the calculation of these elements is complete and the award for UC has been made, that UC award is an indivisible award.  There is no legislation permitting the non-payment of any part of a particular element – unless the award as a whole is revised because of a change of circumstances (e.g. a claimant moves back in with their parents and lives rent free; the claimant begins to earn income, etc.).


You asked: Deductions from housing costs element for arrears payments where the customer is sanctioned and therefore no personal allowance in pay to deduct from – causes administrative confusion for both parties

Our response: On Third Party Deductions - An Award of UC is not exclusively for the purpose of meeting housing costs in full, but for the purpose of helping the claimant to meet their living and housing costs. An order exists to deductions from a UC award to meet this principle.
Conditionality sanctions are deducted from the UC Adjusted Award; then
amounts for Third Party Deductions (TPDs) and then Alternative Payment Arrangements (APA) are deducted from the UC Award and not from individual elements that have been used as part of the process to calculate that Award.
An APA pays to a Landlord an amount of UC up to the value of the eligible housing costs on behalf of the UC claimant – it is not a guaranteed payment of rental liability in full.
If the UC Award remaining, after deduction of sanctions and then the TPDs, are less than the total value of the housing costs element, any remaining amount of UC will be paid out to a landlord as an APA.

not particularly helpful I’m afraid…

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

Just catching up with this, thanks Daphne.

Agree with their interpretation of UC. 

However, how this plays out in practice is that in a case where someone has only ‘the amount of the housing costs element’ left in pay of their UC because the ‘amount of the personal allowance’ has been deducted because of a Sanction, then up to £127 per month (40 per cent of the amount of the personal allowance) can be deducted from their UC which they are using to pay their rent (whether by way of an APA or otherwise).  The deductions are usually a combination of rent arrears, advance payment, social fund, some old overpayment dredged up for recovery, fine etc etc, in line with the regulations on order of deductions.

This is a totally different situation to that on legacy benefits where JSA was sanctioned but full HB remained in payment protecting the tenancy of the sanctioned person.  The only deductions which were taken from HB were overpayments of HB, whereas under UC all of the above can be taken from what has replaced HB.  This means the impact of the sanction is almost inevitable homelessness as they are not only unable to make their rent arrears payments, they are unable to pay their ongoing rental liability.