Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC non dep deds

PhilB
forum member

Welfare rights - Barnsley MBC

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 10 February 2012

Morning guys

Any advice on this one?...…………

I have a family living in a 3 bed PRS property. £495 pcm.

There is Mum, daughter (daughter has a child) & the son all over 21 except the granddaughter obviously.

Mum & daughter are joint tenants. Both on UC, housing element is split into two (£247.50 housing costs each)

Son works full time minimum wage.

Mum is in receipt of PIP standard daily living.

UC have not applied a NDD to mums claim but have the daughters.

Firstly is this right? And if so is there any way around it?

Thank you

Va1der
forum member

Welfare Support Worker - Community Renewal Edinburgh

Send message

Total Posts: 64

Joined: 7 May 2019

How is the property structured?
Do the daughter and child have separate facilities for instance, or is it just a “normal” house with 3 bedrooms and everything else shared?

PhilB
forum member

Welfare rights - Barnsley MBC

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 10 February 2012

Its just a normal 3 bed house everything shared

Va1der
forum member

Welfare Support Worker - Community Renewal Edinburgh

Send message

Total Posts: 64

Joined: 7 May 2019

Sounds right to me in that case.
NDD could normally apply to either tenant (but not both), and in this case it can’t be applied to the mum because of her PIP.

Is there any reason the son can’t contribute to the rent?

PhilB
forum member

Welfare rights - Barnsley MBC

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 10 February 2012

But in reality he is mums non dep not sisters, I can see both sides but it just feels that UC have thought “we cant apply it to mums (due to her PIP) so will give it sister instead”. Doesn’t seem as though they have thought about the make up/situation at all.

The reason the mum & daughter had to do a joint tenancy was because mum & dads relationship brokedown he left & the letting agent would not re-sign the tenancy over to just mum they agreed to do it if mum & daughter did a joint tenancy.

He pays board already but now sisters UC housing costs are £99pcm instead of £247.50pcm due to the NDD.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 470

Joined: 27 February 2019

He can only be a non-dependent of one household whether a HCC is applied or not. However, the legislation does not specify a method of choosing which. I can’t see why they cannot request for the non-dependent to be included in the mother’s extended benefit unit.
See UC Regs, Sched 4 Para 9(2)(f), and the top paragraph on page 2 here (in particular the words “if there is no exemption”).

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 470

Joined: 27 February 2019

PhilB - 04 December 2019 09:49 AM

He pays board already but now sisters UC housing costs are £99pcm instead of £247.50pcm due to the NDD.

Why are two HCCs being applied?

PhilB
forum member

Welfare rights - Barnsley MBC

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 10 February 2012

Its a joint tenancy so mum & daughter each have a separate UC claim & therefore 50/50 on HC’s

I’m going to type up a dispute & send it to the daughter so she can paste it to her journal & see what happens.

Thanks for all your input

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 470

Joined: 27 February 2019

PhilB - 04 December 2019 10:33 AM

Its a joint tenancy so mum & daughter each have a separate UC claim & therefore 50/50 on HC’s

I’m going to type up a dispute & send it to the daughter so she can paste it to her journal & see what happens.

Thanks for all your input

Sorry, I wasn’t being clear. From the figures you’ve given, it sounds like they are making two deductions for non-dependents: £247.50-(2*£73.89)=£99.72. Why two?

PhilB
forum member

Welfare rights - Barnsley MBC

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 10 February 2012

Charles sorry I never even realised this was x 2 NDD’s I was under the impression the £147.78 was the rate of NDD due to sons level of earnings. I forgot it is a standard £73.89 NDD under UC, I was still thinking under old HB NDD’s.

Seems UC have got it completely wrong then. Give me strength!

Thanks

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2042

Joined: 12 March 2013

Charles - 04 December 2019 09:51 AM

He can only be a non-dependent of one household whether a HCC is applied or not. However, the legislation does not specify a method of choosing which. I can’t see why they cannot request for the non-dependent to be included in the mother’s extended benefit unit.

I think it’s a workflow lottery: whichever claim is decided first gets the non-dep.  There is nothing in para 9 to prevent the non-dep being included on the first claim, and that then blocks the non-dep from being included on the second claim.

I have just been looking at the Barnsley LHA rates to see whether the apportionment of the rent other than 50:50 would make a difference, but it won’t: one third, one half or two thirds are all comfortably within the LHA rates.

 

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 470

Joined: 27 February 2019

HB Anorak - 04 December 2019 10:45 AM

I think it’s a workflow lottery: whichever claim is decided first gets the non-dep.  There is nothing in para 9 to prevent the non-dep being included on the first claim, and that then blocks the non-dep from being included on the second claim.

I see what you’re saying. If this is the case, and DWP refuse to move over the non-dependent, then depending on the level of benefit, it might even be worthwhile ending the daughter’s claim for one month.

PhilB
forum member

Welfare rights - Barnsley MBC

Send message

Total Posts: 24

Joined: 10 February 2012

Thanks all. I see what you’re saying if all else fails