Good morning

Last week, I represented my client Miss X at a First-tier tribunal, concerning DWP’s refusal to award “housing costs” for the property she occupied, and purchased, in September 2023, specifically for her use by her parents. Her need for accommodation started in January 2023 when, without notice, Social Services arrived at the 1-bed bungalow she shared with her then-partner, and 18-month-old son, demanding they assume responsibility for her partner’s two sons from a former relationship. Social Services initially gave assurances they would secure Housing Association accommodation for the 5 of them but this commitment was never fulfilled. Living in their new overcrowded situation caused friction between the couple, subsequently leading to separation, although they still maintained contact for the baby’s sake.

Miss X’s senior citizen parents provided a partial solution by purchasing a 2-bed property in the village in which they lived, with the assistance of a mortgage and a large part of their savings. As Ms X had previously received help through Universal Credit, with housing costs, she assumed DWP would again provide support with the rental charge. The parent’s solicitor created a tenancy agreement between the parties, with a rent pitched at the local housing allowance (LHA) rate.

Miss X duly reported the change to UC and in response received a “contrived tenancy” questionnaire involving 30 questions, seeking answers to why she had decided to rent from her parents. DWP subsequently rejected her application for “housing costs” on the basis the agreement between the parties was non-commercial and “contrived to abuse the system” but offered no credible explanation for reaching such a conclusion.

After an unsuccessful Mandatory Reconsideration, I submitted a detailed submission on behalf of Miss X, addressing DWP’s adverse decision.  A tribunal hearing was arranged for August 2024. DWP was instructed to attend and provide a written response to my submission, in advance. It failed to comply on both counts. However, the Judge decided to give DWP another chance to comply, causing a further 6-month delay.

Before last week’s hearing, DWP did reply to my submission. It stated:

“There is a Tenancy Agreement between Ms X and her landlords which has been signed, dated and witnessed……. It contains both Ms X and her landlords’ responsibilities and includes fully legally enforceable conditions”. The submission also accepted that she’d been living in the property since July 2023 and had submitted evidence of her liability for council tax, utility bills, etc.

Based on that response, DWP had effectively thrown the towel in, to its “non-commercial” tenancy claim. The Judge dismissed its “contrived to abuse “argument and, at the end of the hearing, confirmed my client’s appeal success and backdated the award (£10K) to September 2023, much to her and her parent’s relief.

You could be forgiven for asking – why did it take so long and why were the claimant and parents put through 18 months of wholly a avoidable worry and anguish? I’m afraid, this is typical of what happens in “close family” tenancies, even though there is nothing immoral or illegal about such arrangements. Thankfully, Miss X’s parents were able to weather the financial maelstrom over the 18 months. Many other families are unable to do so and end up selling the property and/or giving up their appeal, believing it’s hopeless. The truth is, that 60% of UC appeals, where a representative is involved, are successful, so it’s well worth the effort.

If you’d like to know more details of this case or need assistance challenging any other type of adverse Universal Credit decision, concerning you or your tenants, please get in touch bill@ucadvice.co.uk

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

Tel: 01698 42401 or 07733 080 389