Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Client having reverted to her maiden name (Social Landlord tenancy) told she has to use her ‘legal name’ i.e. married name to be eligible for HE
Colleague has client with a UC award having reverted to her maiden name (Social housing) told she has to use her ‘legal name’ i.e. married name to receive UC HE and change her tenancy agreement to her married name (estranged from former partner).
Rejecting her social landlord’s verification because it is in her maiden name the name on the tenancy agreement?
Looking at Reg 25 UC regs 2013 the three conditions for eligibility i.e. payment condition, the liability condition, and ‘occupation conditions’ have been met.
It feels reminiscent of untidy tenancies.
Any thoughts?
What’s required is that your client is liable for the rent - i.e. that she, the living breathing person, is responsible for paying the rent due under the tenancy agreement. It is not relevant what name she has used in assuming that liability, provided that she is the person being referred to.
There could be scenarios where a discrepancy as to the name used on a tenancy agreement could genuinely call into question the claimant’s liability to pay rent for that property, but typos, use of maiden/married names, omission of double-barrelled surnames etc. are unlikely to do that. In this case there doesn’t seem to be any sensible basis to question that she is the one liable for the rent and the DWP officer is just being difficult.
Chuck it up to the partnership manager.
What’s required is that your client is liable for the rent - i.e. that she, the living breathing person, is responsible for paying the rent due under the tenancy agreement. It is not relevant what name she has used in assuming that liability, provided that she is the person being referred to.
There could be scenarios where a discrepancy as to the name used on a tenancy agreement could genuinely call into question the claimant’s liability to pay rent for that property, but typos, use of maiden/married names, omission of double-barrelled surnames etc. are unlikely to do that. In this case there doesn’t seem to be any sensible basis to question that she is the one liable for the rent and the DWP officer is just being difficult.
Chuck it up to the partnership manager.
Thanks Elliot, we have basically said as much to the ACSSL in an email earlier, on the journal, and the on line complaints thingy.
We thought the whole awful scenario should be in the public domain. To add to the horror client has new born baby.
‘that she, the living breathing person, is responsible for paying the rent due under the tenancy agreement’. Is a great line sums up the absurdity.
Sanity prevailed the divergence between the legislation / rules and administrative wing and a whatever. In favour of the legislation. Client had initially claimed UC beginning of January.
UC Journal entry dated 28/04/2023 advised that UC CM had conferred and received advice from their ‘Technical Team’ that they can make UC HE payments without client changing her name back to her estranged marriage name on UC claim and tenancy.