Couples and housing costs for UC

Paragraph 10 of schedule 4 sets out how many rooms people are allowed for the bedroom tax and LHA

10.—(1) A renter is entitled to one bedroom for each of the following categories of persons in
their extended benefit unit—
(a) the renter (or joint renters);
(b) a qualifying young person for whom the renter or either joint renter is responsible;
(c) a non-dependant who is not a child;
(d) two children who are under 10 years old;
(e) two children of the same sex;
(f) any other child.

We had been promised by Lord Freud that the regulations would allow joint tenant couples to be treated as individuals.  So if a couple and a single person were all joint tenants they would be allowed three bedrooms.

I can see how the regulation gives effect to this, but doesn’t it also mean that a couple who are joint tenants are entitled to two bedrooms. (Althernatively could it not be read to say that all the joint tenants have to cram in one bedroom.?)

You can also give non-dep couples two rooms.

Gareth, are you agreeing with my reading of the rules about couple joint tenants.  Do you (or others) think that this is what the government intended?  If not they will presumably amend the regs in time.

I’m agreeing with your reading Chris.  Whether you, or I, are right I’m less sure.

The DWP has said

These instruments are the product of an exercise to rewrite around 1,000 pages
of existing regulations. In relation to the Universal Credit Regulations, the approach
has been, wherever possible, to replace detailed provisions with general principles
supported by guidance. This should reduce the need for frequent amendment of the
regulations.

That means that the interpretation will, presumably, be subject to the ‘guidance’ which we have yet to see.  It will be interesting to see how we go about challenging that guidance or its consequences.

Would be amazing if this is correct as it has been very clear up until now that couples can only have one bedroom. If a joint tenancy has to be created on an existing tenancy which was created as sole, would this be viewed as contrived?  The Government planned simpilicity in UC but if they had to ‘rewrite’ 1000 pages of HB regs it will be just as complex and we will find lots to question as Chris is finding out.

Just to make matters more complicated, here is the definition of “joint renters” given in paragraph 1 of schedule 4 of the UC regs

“(2) Claimants who fall within sub-paragraph (1) are referred to in this Schedule as “renters” (and references to “joint renters” are to joint claimants to whom regulation 26(2) applies).” 

(Regulation 26(2) identifies people who pay rent)

What does this mean?  What are joint claimants?  If the term only refers to a couple why doesn’t it say this?  The term seems to exclude joint tenants who are not couples.  If it does, what are the provisions for joint tenants who are not couples?

It’s in reg 2(3).  The construction of the reg as a whole makes it clear that a joint claimant is someone who is part of a couple.  Joint renters who are not a couple will then be non-deps of each other.  But I know what you mean about having to go round the houses to get there.

As i understand the regulations the term “joint renters” is intended to mean couples, but “joint tenants” two or more people/families people not for benefit purposes part of the same household who rent under the same tenancy agreement as each other. So if the tenancy was in the names of four people - a couple, and two single people (ie, a shared house) the starting point is 3 bedrooms, plus more for any dependents/non-dependants of any of them.

However in the absence of a definition to displace the normal legal meaing of joint tenants I’m not sure this is achieved.