Client in use and occupation on deceased partner’s tenancy, but also owns a house outright

Could I get a sense check here?
A client has been co-habiting with a partner for 3 years, and she sadly passed away on October ‘22. He claims UC (single person’s allowance and LCWRA) and PIP, and has been granted use and occupation of her LA tenancy while a panel decides if he can succeed the tenancy. When I spoke to him, it turns out he was previously living in a property that he owns outright. He still owns this property and his adult daughters and their partners live there and he charges them a small amount of rent.

I can’t see any exclusions that stop his property counting as capital and excluding him from entitlement to UC. Is there anything in the fact that he has only got use and occupation charges for living at the deceased partner’s property, and this is a temporary arrangement? It doesn’t feel like that will work as an argument to ignore his capital. I mean, he says he’s lived there for 3 years and has all new furniture there.
He also asked me about signing his property over to his daughters or selling it to them; I advised he could fall foul of the deprivation of capital rules.
There’s also the matter of him potentially being on a single claim for UC while living with the partner - he doesn’t think he ever updated UC that he moved and therefore I don’t think they joined their claims.

if its an LA property, Id be very surprised they’d let him success a tenancy if he owns another property - also, was his late partner on benefit? (hb or UC) Did she advise LA landlords that her partner had moved in? It may be difficult for him to demonstrate he was living with her for a required length of time to be considered for succession.
The house he owns - i cant think why it would be disregarded.  If he sells it to the daughters, he will have the cash anyway which is likely to be above £16k - but agree if he just signs it over to them then its be hard to see why that wouldn’t be deprivation.

Also, if he never told UC he moved in with his late partner, presumably they still think he is living in the house he owns?? , they wouldn’t have known the house he owns he was no longer living in, so they wouldn’t know it was capital.

Have you considered the (realisable) value of the property? Taking into account mortgage, costs around sale (usually estimated to 10%, I think), reduced value due to having occupants etc.

In terms of succeeding the tenancy - if he as to evict his children in order to occupy the property he would arguably fall under the homelessness provision until that can happen, no?

Prisca - Yes he thinks he hasn’t updated UC that he moved in with his partner.

Vader - Yeah I considered the impact on market value that sitting tenants would have, but he estimates it’s worth £400,000-£450,000, so that minus 10% sale costs and the fact they will be assured shorthold tenants, he/any new owner could issue them with s.21 notice to gain possession… I think the impact on market value would be small, or at least value would still exceed £16k.
When you say homelessness provisions, are you talking about him approach the local authority for homelessness assistance? Or actually thinking about it,  did you mean that if he takes steps to evict them then the capital could be disregarded as in UC Regs Schedule 10:
4.—(1) Premises that a person intends to occupy as their home where—
(b)the person is taking steps to obtain possession and has commenced those steps within the past 6 months;

The immediate point here appears to be that he has been representing to the DWP for the past three years that he is a single person living in a house which he owns (and which therefore qualifies for the disregard) whereas in truth he has been living as a member of a couple in another property and they both ought to have been disqualified from UC. A substantial overpayment and probably a fraud investigation are waiting in the wings.

I don’t think there is anything in the argument that the property can’t be his home because he is currently on ‘use and occupation’. Occupation doesn’t follow from liability. He clearly lives in the rented place as his home on the facts doesn’t he?

Succession is usually a matter of right, not for the council’s discretion (although its more complicated than that). I would guess that the reason why its gone up to a panel is, ironically, because the fact that all his benefit paperwork is saying that he lives at the property he owns is raising a question over whether he is entitled to succeed as a cohabitee. It will be very difficult for him to assert to the council that he is living there thus having succession rights whilst continuing to represent to the DWP that he didn’t live there.

Certainly if the daughters are both entitled to and insisting on exclusive occupation, then he could qualify for help under homelessness legislation. A landlord can still be homeless. It is probably not really at the stage of engaging homelessness provision seeing as the council are still entertaining the idea that he may be able to succeed.

Thanks Elliott and I agree entirely with all that’s been said, and in terms of overpayments - it’s a big box of yikes for the client.
If council tax reduction has also not been updated then there is money overpaid there too.