When is a social landlord not a social landlord?

Hi folks.

In my Citizens Advice we - unusually - act as an agent for Worcester Municipal Charities. WMC are a registered social landlord according to the list on gov.uk, but because we are the agent, UC insist on treating the properties concerned as private lets. This therefore impacts on under 35s, for example, if we try to place them in a self contained one bed with WMC.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-registered-providers-of-social-housing/list-of-registered-providers-17-september-2020

Does anyone know what the legal position is - are we messing things up by acting as WMC’s agent, or are UC in the wrong? We’re trying to get an answer from UC but not really getting anywhere. The irony is, the local authority are happy to treat these lets as social, so somebody is wrong but I’m not sure who!

I’ve tried to find legislation re what actually constitutes a social landlord for benefits purposes, and drawn a blank, so any help gratefully received!

Chris

Sch 4, para 30 UC Regs 2013, explains in relation to part 5 of the schedule which deals with social sector rentals, “This Part [...] applies to renters who are liable to make rent payments to a provider of social housing”.

Sch 4, para 2:

“provider of social housing” means—
(a)a local authority;
(b)a non-profit registered provider of social housing;
(c)in relation to accommodation which is social housing, a profit-making registered provider of social housing;
(d)a registered social landlord;

According to the information provided by the Regulator of Social Housing, “Worcester Municipal Charities CIO” is a non-profit registered provider of social housing under registration number 4855 so seems to fall within the statutory definition - heading (b).

I am not quite sure what you mean by saying that your bureau “acts as an agent” for WMC, however unless the actual liability is between your bureau and the tenant - i.e. some sort of sub-letting arrangement - it is difficult to see how this would not fall within part 5.

Thanks for the response.

I have a feeling we do actually sit in the middle as regards to whom the tenant’s liabilities arise, in which case it would seem expedient to change the arrangement so that payments go direct to WMC.

Edit, the license agreements cite WMC by name. I think the onus is on me to figure out exactly what our arrangement is but thanks for the feedback!

There is a difference between receiving payment and actually being the person to whom the liability is owed.

Nonetheless, the whole arrangement seems rather unusual and to be honest it does not sit easily with me but I will leave it at that.

Elliot Kent - 27 July 2021 02:12 PM

There is a difference between receiving payment and actually being the person to whom the liability is owed.

Nonetheless, the whole arrangement seems rather unusual and to be honest it does not sit easily with me but I will leave it at that.

I know it’s strange! It’s arisen because of a historic merger between Worcester citizens advice and another charity which did the housing stuff. It is unusual and we are very careful about potential conflicts of interest, but I absolutely take your point.

I will clarify with my management, but I think we should be ok as the liability is stated as being to WMC.

Thanks again for your help.