UC with PSIC partner

Client is 19 year old care leaver already in receipt of UC (job seeking). His partner is also a 19 year care leaver, is pregnant, and a person subject to immigration control (a New Zealand national with no recourse to public funds). The social worker has called our advice line to double check their UC entitlement and, specifically, what will happen with the housing costs element if they move in together. The landlord (private rented, one bedroom) is insisting on a joint tenancy and the social worker is worried that the client (already claiming) won’t receive the housing costs element to cover the full rent.

I want to advise that the client should be treated as a single claimant (though any income/ capital from his partner will be taken into account) with no payments at all for the partner. I also think that he should receive the housing costs element up to the LHA for a one bedroom property because he’s jointly liable with a relevant family member and has to claim as a single person.

Do you think that this is correct? I’m having difficulty finding solid information that I’m happy to use as the basis for my answer (and we’re still live service so we’re getting limited practice with UC queries at the moment…).

Thanks in advance.

UC Reg 3(3) says:

(3) A person who is a member of a couple may make a claim as a single person if the other member of the couple—
(e) is a person to whom section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (exclusion from benefits) applies
and regulations 18 (capital limit), 36 (amount of elements) and 22 (deduction of income and work allowance) provide for the calculation of the award in such cases

Regs 18 and 22 provide for income and capital to be aggregated; Reg 36 provides for the elements other than the housing element to be awarded at the rate for a single person.

As for the housing element, normally a member of a couple claiming as a single person is restricted to the shared accommodation LHA if they are under 35 - having a partner doesn’t help them (see para 28 of Schedule 4).  But your client is a care leaver under 22 and therefore likely to be exempt from the shared accommodation rate.

You are worried, however, that the partner will be regarded as a joint tenant who is not part of the claim and that the housing element will be restricted to 50% of the full rent, which will probably be less than the one-bed LHA.  Para 24 of Schedule 4 says (in the most complicated way imaginable) that UC will not cover the share of any joint tenant who is not a “listed person”.  So the key to this is the definition of “listed person” in para 2 of the Schedule, which includes:

(b) where the renter is a member of a couple, the other member of the couple

Your client is a member of a couple.  The partner is not a “joint renter” and not a member of the “extended benefit unit” (both of which can affect the calculation of the housing element in other ways), but she is still “the other member of the couple” and therefore a “listed person”.  This means her share of the rent is included in the UC award for the claimant.

That’s great, many thanks.

but the PISC is also a care leaver.  Was she in care in the UK and does that assist her in any way re LA’s duties to her as a care leaver?  (and if she’s a NZ cit how did she end up in care here and does that assist her sorting out her immigration position?) .  I don’t know the answer to those questions, but wonder if answers should be sought - would be a long term fix but clearly needs looking at ......

That’s all in hand.

Just as an update in case anyone is interested: DWP are refusing to pay the full housing costs element (without, of course, providing any legal basis).

OK, well here is the MR then:

- The amount of the housing element for a private renter is the lesser of the “core rent” and the “cap rent”: para 22 of Schedule 4

Core rent:
- The core rent for joint tenants is calculated under para 24.  The persons jointly liable to pay rent under the tenancy are divided into “listed persons” and others.  Where both/all joint tenants are listed persons, the core rent is the full amount payable under the tenancy.
- “Listed persons” are defined in para 2 of the Schedule.  They include the renter and, where the renter is a member of the couple, the other member of that couple.
- The claimant is a member of a couple.  “Couple” is defined in s39 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.  Two people who are members of the same household are a couple if they are married or living together as if they were married.  Regulations may specify circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as belonging to a household
- UC Reg 3(6) says that two people cease to be a couple if either of them is absent from the household for longer than six months.  That does not apply in the claimant’s case, therefore he remains a member of a couple and his partner remains a listed person.  Consequently the claimant’s “core rent” is the full rent under the tenancy.
Note in particular that the fact he is claiming UC as a single person by virtue of Reg 3(3)(e) does not change the fact he is a member of a couple: Reg 3(3) acknowledges that a claimant in that situation is a member of a couple.

Cap rent:
- As a care leaver under 22 the claimant is an “excepted person” whose cap rent does not fall to be restricted to the shared accommodation LHA: see para 29(3) of Schedule 4.  His cap rent is therefore the self-contained one-bed rate of LHA

In conclusion, the UC housing element should be the lesser of (1)the self-contained one-bed LHA and (2) the full rent under the joint tenancy: it is incorrect to halve the full rent under the joint tenancy.

Thank you.

I’ve also included: ‘I believe you are confusing the fact that I am entitled to the housing costs element as part of a couple with the fact that I have to claim and be paid as a single person. I refer you to Regulation 36(3) which provides for elements other than the housing costs element to be awarded at the rate for a single person and I also refer back to the paragraphs quoted above’.

This will be our first UC appeal if DWP don’t see sense. We’ll see…

Any update?

So to clarify. Forgetting the joint tenant bit for my example.
Client British. Partner no recourse to public funds. Client works. 1 child.
He can claim uc single rate. She has no income. He will also get housing costs paid based on usual calculations? For tax credits they used to be able to claim joint and that wasn’t recourse.
But for housing benefit they used to have to claim joint. Council wouldn’t allow a single claim. And that would then result in additional recourse being claimed. So we wouldn’t advise it.
So uc is more beneficial for these couples?