Delays in client succeeding tenancy from late mother and not being eligible for Housing Costs

Have just been speaking to a client who due to delays in the process has been waiting months to succeed their late mother’s tenancy - will have no choice but to make a claim for UC.

I was looking for the regs to do with ‘intention to occupy’ to make sure we can at least get the HC costs backdated from the date the UC claim goes in, but I’m struggling to find them.

Was hoping someone would be able to point me in the right direction - it’s a Housing Association property and they’re going to expect the client to sign the new tenancy from the day after mother died, so whatever happens there will be rent arrears unfortunately.

Hi.
It’s in Schedule 1 of the UC regs 2013 - the phrase you want is permission to occupy
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/schedule/1
Rent payments
2.  “Rent payments” are such of the following as are not excluded by paragraph 3—

(a)payments of rent;
(b)payments for a licence or other permission to occupy accommodation;
(c)mooring charges payable for a houseboat;
(d)in relation to accommodation which is a caravan or mobile home, payments in respect of the site on which the accommodation stands;
(e)contributions by residents towards maintaining almshouses (and essential services in them) provided by a housing association which is—
(i)a registered charity, or
(ii)an exempt charity within Schedule 3 to the Charities Act 2011.

I think this is maybe more of a housing advice issue than a benefits issue.

The HA could (and should) have charged the client ‘use and occupation’ charges via an agreement she had a licence to occupy all along. Those would have been covered under Sch. 1 para. 2(b) UC Regs, thus avoiding any arrears.

Are you really saying that the HA have allowed her to live there without charge for months, have consciously avoided created anything that could be construed as a tenancy and are now proposing to create a tenancy retrospectively? and with a retrospective rental liability? If the succession is one by operation of law, the client was, of course, liable for ‘actual’ rent from day one. If it’s a discretionary tenancy, then not - and the landlord really should have charged use and occupation charges. The client could push back on that basis, I suppose, but that might risk the landlord exercising discretion the other way….she really needs housing advice here, because whether it’s a rental or use and occupation liability, a backdated claim to cover those months isn’t possible.

Always best to claim immediately in these situations and let the evidence follow…..