Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
there is no way of me being able to tell the computer that you have an untidy tenancy
Anybody else come across this with “untidy” tenancies?
We have an APA (as you’d expect with over £5,000 arrears). Finally sorted out HRT issues (settled status). Benefit cap means that the untidy tenancy doesn’t make any difference to the total UC award at the moment, but it does mean that the APA is only covering half the rent.
In response to the claimant’s (my) request to treat the claimant as liable for the whole rent and pay the APA accordingly, the claim manager says:
“So with untidy tenancys, we have to send your payment to you as we would normally so that you receive your statement (this is the calculation made by the computer), once that has been done we must re-calculate any moneys owed and send it separately.
Because there is no way of me being able to tell the computer that you have an untidy tenancy (this is all done on a basis of trust and human calculation) It will only pay 50% of your rent to your landlord the rest you will have to pay yourself.
Due to the application of the benefit cap it will not re-calculate that there is any money owed.
Once there is an instance where the benefit cap does not apply then you would still have to make that additional payment yourself.
Your rental arrears have been added to the claim so these will start to considered for repayment as of your next payment date.
So in short all the while your tenancy is untidy you will be liable to pay the additional half yourself- your statement will show you what has and has not been paid each month”
Perhaps this is why we’ve encountered so much opposition to dealing with these cases - because there’s no way to tell the computer about something that is actually all about trust and human calculation?
I’m going home.
Is this a thing?
I’ve just heard from another client with an “untidy” tenancy who checked her payment statement on Friday and found that they hadn’t accounted for her full rental liability in the calculation (despite having decided they should in an MR a few weeks ago). She phoned them (a different centre to the previous example) and was told that the claim manager should have diarised to do the calculation. They have suggested that she should call the claim manager a few days before the end of the AP and remind them to take account of the untidy tenancy.
Is this happening everywhere? Is the UC computer system really unable to deal with treating somebody as liable for the full rent in these circumstances?
My understanding is that the system generates an automated calculation which the case manager then needs to check and approve. There are some things which don’t get picked up on the automated check and which need to be amended and I could certainly believe that the untidy tenancy issue is one of these…
Is this a thing?
Its a thing.
I have a client with an untidy tenancy (my teeth hurt when I say “untidy tenancy”) who has to remind UC every.single.month. to calculate her rent properly. We’ve had MR about it, it was successful, yet payment breakdowns always show incorrect amount. Client has to then go on her Journal, or call UC, then the ” checking team ” has to approve the payment, which is then released few days later.
We have asked for a solution to this to be put in place but funnily enough have not received a response…
A suggestion.
Has anyone requested a claimant with an ‘untidy tenancy’ UC records under a SAR? Given the number of screens / processes hidden behind a claimants account, including (I assume) the HC calculation, record of manual intervention, ‘checking team’ etc it may produce some ‘interesting’ info. not only about the individual case but how the process (does not) work in practice as a basis for complaint, policy work and finding the quickest ‘work around’ for future cases. It can be quite instructive to request a case manager look at X ‘hidden’ screen that they are not aware you are aware of!
We have used SAR’s on a number of occasions now to glean this type of info for other UC ‘untidy’ issues that the software apparently cannot cope with. Such evidence is extremely useful at tribunal!
Even pre-empting i.e. raising the subject and adding links to guidance on journal and giving guidance to client to take to initial interview are no guarantees.
Similarly, annual rent increases appear to allow the ‘untidy tenancy’ to kick back in. After seemingly being sorted the first time around.
Which may explain i.e. the digital platform’s short comings. Why the DWP insist on tenants asking their Landlords to remove the offending name from the tenancy agreement.
Why the DWP insist on tenants asking their Landlords to remove the offending name from the tenancy agreement.
I just had a client whose UC HE was declined because her tenancy agreement was in her married name. She divorced, and after a while submitted UC claim in her maiden name. No amount of explanation in the Jobcentre was sufficient. She produced rent receipts and bank statement. Nope.
When after considerable stress and trouble, she has delivered an amended TA to the Jobcentre, her work coach was not impressed. “What is this? Why you brought it?”
Complaint duly submitted into a black hole. Partnership Manager notified.
my teeth hurt when I say “untidy tenancy”
...yes, and a little bit of my faith in human nature dies every time I hear it. It is so disrespectful and unnecessary - HB never needed it. It is especially rude when taken in context; most cases where a joint tenant is absent are going to be to do with relationship breakdown (possibly domestic violence) or bereavement. The literal implication is that the claimant’s life is a mess. It’s just another sign of the inhumanity of the system.
And another thing… they went to the trouble of thinking up an awful new name for it, but they didn’t go to the trouble of getting their computers to deal with it properly.
A suggestion.
Has anyone requested a claimant with an ‘untidy tenancy’ UC records under a SAR? ... It can be quite instructive to request a case manager look at X ‘hidden’ screen that they are not aware you are aware of!
I like the idea of this, and I have a client who might be up for it!
I’m sorry to hear that claimants are still encountering this problem, which we’ve raised with the DWP on numerous occasions and which they’ve been “looking into”. Our contacts appear to be in agreement with your comments above, that this discrepancy arises largely due to the design of the digital system.
The DWP decision to include only 50% of the rent in the UC calculation can be challenged. The following paragraph is copied from my November 2018 EWS newsletter (Links and further info available on this page: https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/resources/e-bulletins/early-warning-system-e-bulletin-november-2018):
Single claimants with joint tenancies may be treated as liable for 100% of the rent in accordance with Regulation 25(3)(a)(ii) and paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 and the DWP’s decision maker’s guidance (at paragraph F2089). The remaining tenant may need to explain that the non-occupying party is not paying their share of the rent, all of the rent must be paid to permit continued occupation of the accommodation, it isn’t reasonable for the remaining tenant to have their tenancy changed (which can incur considerable expense and affect the family’s housing rights), and it is otherwise reasonable in all the circumstances to treat the remaining tenant as liable for 100% of the rent, as their landlord and the court would treat them as liable for and evict the family for non-payment of rent.
If an MR request isn’t yielding a timely response, do consider JR pre-action. There’s a template letter on the CPAG website to address precisely this issue: https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/judicial-review/judicial-review-pre-action-letters/housing-costs-uc The feedback on this letter has been extremely positive, with untidy tenancies being sorted within a couple of weeks (don’t know off the top of my head about retrieving backdated entitlement).
I’d be so grateful if advisers coming across this issue could take the time to complete an EWS submission - so we can go back to the DWP with evidence that this problem remains unresolved. Submit your war stories here: https://cpag.org.uk/policy-campaigns/early-warning-system
Terms like ‘untidy’ subconciously shift the responsibility away from the party who’s at fault for not having a working system, onto the side that’s quite properly trying to claim something the law says they’re entitled to.