Good morning

Background: the enhanced review decision

An HMO tenant who had received Universal Credit, including housing costs, since March 2023 was referred to DWP’s enhanced review team in September 2025. She provided her Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement, utility bills where available, and a landlord’s letter confirming continued occupation.

DWP nevertheless appeared to misunderstand the HMO arrangement, particularly the fact that she was not personally liable for utilities or Council Tax in the way its evidence request had assumed.

DWP then retrospectively revised the award, creating alleged overpayments of approximately £28,000.

After I secured a mandate of authority, I wrote to DWP’s hierarchy identifying basic decision-making errors and explaining why there was no proper basis to remove the housing costs element or treat earlier payments as recoverable.

DWP eventually conceded, but only after months of delay

As too often happens in appeals, DWP did not correct the decision promptly. The case drifted for around seven months before the Tribunal Service confirmed DWP had conceded. The alleged overpayments should then have been removed and the housing costs arrears, around £11,000, paid.

I forwarded the Tribunal’s letter to DWP’s hierarchy and asked that the claimant’s account be updated, the overpayments cancelled, and the arrears paid to the landlord because the rent account was already in serious arrears and the tenancy was under threat.

The new problem: arrears paid to the tenant, not the landlord

Six weeks later, the landlord’s agent confirmed that DWP had instead paid the £11,000 to the tenant, who misused £8K of it. This was despite knowing about the rent arrears, the risk to the tenancy, and the basis for redirecting payment and applying third-party deductions.

The likely explanation is that, when the enhanced review team cancelled the award, the existing direct payment arrangement ceased. When entitlement was restored, DWP failed to protect the arrears by paying them to the landlord, even though that was the obvious way to reduce the rent debt and preserve the tenancy.

The tenant had spent around £8,000 of the arrears, leaving the landlord exposed to further loss and the tenant at increased risk of eviction. That outcome was avoidable. It followed from the flawed enhanced review decision, the delay in conceding the appeal, and the failure to manage the arrears once entitlement was restored.

Complaint route and the limits of redress

The landlord has asked me to pursue a complaint to the Independent Case Examiner seeking compensation for rental loss caused by DWP maladministration. That request is understandable: the landlord provided evidence, cooperated with the process, waited for the appeal to resolve, and tried to protect the tenancy once DWP conceded.

However, compensation is far from certain. In previous cases, the Independent Case Examiner, Joanna Wallace, has declined to recommend compensation for landlords in similar circumstances, suggesting instead that they pursue the tenant through the courts. That is unsatisfactory where the tenant’s position has been worsened by the same maladministration under complaint.

The wider lesson for landlords

This case shows that winning the appeal is not always the end of the matter. Where DWP has wrongly stopped housing costs and allowed arrears to build, landlords must press for prompt implementation of the concession.

If arrears are due, DWP should be asked expressly to restore any direct payment arrangement, consider a managed payment to landlord, apply third-party deductions where appropriate, and pay arrears in a way that reduces the rent debt rather than increasing the risk of eviction.

Regrettably, cases of this nature are all too common. So, if you or your tenants encounter problems, it’s important to act quickly and decisively to avoid rental loss and the need for recovery action.

If you need assistance, please email bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone me.

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

Tel: 07733 080 389