Housing costs and fleeeing DV

Good question on a training course - can anyone help please? UC is paid to abusive partner (A) who is not paying the rent. Abused partner (B) leaves property and flees to refuge. She will now claim as a single person. Can she claim hosusing costs on her old home (even though they both have laibility for rent) and HB for refuge?
I did have a look at the ‘untidy tenancies thread (http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/8132/) but doesn’t seem to apply as B will not want to give up her tenancy as she will be seen as voluntarily homeless and if she lets the arrears acrue she will not be offered another property when she leaves the refuge while she has rent arrears (in most cases).

She can only claim on two properties if property was empty and she intended to return. Partner can claim full rent via UC as he is jointly and severely liable for rent. Assume this will be made clear to UC housing team. She will still equally be deemed to have responsibility for rent arrears on a property when seeking alternative accommodation.

That scenario is a mess just waiting to happen isn’t it?

barbs1000 - 25 January 2016 05:23 PM

B will not want to give up her tenancy as she will be seen as voluntarily homeless

B should not be seen as intentionally homeless as it is not reasonable for her to continue to occupy that property.

Thanks. Yes 1964 - can’t see way round it.
I am not a housing expert Cordelia but the LA in this case are seeing women as intentionally homeless if they give up their tenancy.  Maybe they feel they should stay in the home and fight for it with an injuction etc (very compassionate!). Have you got anything they can use?
Sanwyp UC regs shecdule 3 para 6(4) only says she has to be liable for both homes, which she is (even if ex is as well and they’re not paying) or am I stretching the point here?
Was hoping to use ‘treated as liable’ as ex not paying but can she be ‘treated as liable’ when she already is liable??- probably not!

Your client is entitled to apply under the 1996 Housing Act Part vii /Homelessness act 2002. If she has applied then she should be given a section 184 decision letter outlining whether her application is accepted or not and the reasons behind the decision.

Its really difficult to advise you more without knowing more. If she is a tenant, and the local authority feel that she is not fleeing violence, then the correct decision would normally be “not homeless”  as she has accommodation that in their view (not yours or hers) she can reasonably occupy.

Is she is a council tenant the LA might be looking at it in terms of a “Management Move” or heaven forbid they are treating it as a so called Housing Options interview .

Your starting point is really just need to know whether she has submitted a Homeless application or not and has a decision letter.

Thanks Martin, it was a general query on a training course but I will pass your valuable information onto the refuge

Its a long time since I was a homelessness officer, but as far as I can see the correct approach to domestic violence hasn’t changed.

This is from the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities:

Domestic violence or other violence
8.19. Section 177(1) provides that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy
accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence or other
violence against:
i) the applicant;
ii) a person who normally resides as a member of the applicant’s family; or
iii) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant.
Section 177(1A) provides that violence means violence from another person or threats
of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out. Domestic violence
is violence from a person who is associated with the victim and also includes threats
of violence which are likely to be carried out. Domestic violence is not confined to
instances within the home but extends to violence outside the home.

8.23. In cases involving violence, housing authorities may wish to inform applicants of the
option of seeking an injunction, but should make clear that there is no obligation on
the applicant to do so. Where applicants wish to pursue this option, it is advisable that
they obtain independent advice as an injunction may be ill-advised in some
circumstances. Housing authorities should recognise that injunctions ordering a person
not to molest, or enter the home of, an applicant may not be effective in deterring
perpetrators from carrying out further violence or incursions, and applicants may not
have confidence in their effectiveness. Consequently, applicants should not be
expected to return home on the strength of an injunction. To ensure applicants who
have experienced actual or threatened violence get the support they need, authorities
should inform them of appropriate organisations in the area such as agencies offering
counselling and support as well as specialist advice.
8.24. When dealing with cases involving violence, or threat of violence, from outside the
home, housing authorities should consider the option of improving the security of the
applicant’s home to enable him or her to continue to live there safely, where that is an
option that the applicant wishes to pursue. In some cases, immediate action to improve
security within the victim’s home may prevent homelessness. A fast response
combined with support from the housing authority, police and the voluntary sector
may provide a victim with the confidence to remain in their home. When dealing with
domestic violence within the home, where the authority is the landlord, housing authorities should consider the scope for evicting the perpetrator and allowing the
victim to remain in their home. However, where there would be a probability of
violence if the applicant continued to occupy his or her present accommodation,
the housing authority must treat the applicant as homeless and should not expect
him or her to remain in, or return to, the accommodation. In all cases involving
violence the safety of the applicant and his or her household should be the
primary consideration at all stages of decision making as to whether or not the
applicant remains in their own home.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7841/152056.pdf

Of course this depends on whether the authority accepts that there is a risk of violence, as Martin says if the authority isn’t satisfied that there is a risk then they would not consider the applicant to be homeless at all, so if she did give up her tenancy then she would be seen as intentionally homeless. 

I could understand a woman choosing to make a homelessness application and get a decision on that before formally ending her tenancy, as that way she knows she will not be left without any options if the local authority does not accept her as homeless. 

I would be concerned if a council had a blanket policy of telling victims that they would be intentionally homeless if they ended their tenancy, and would look at each individual case to see if it could be challenged.

Ha! so would I! - thank you for your help