Good afternoon

Members may recall my earlier bulletin, “DWP creating a habit of raising a white flag when properly challenged”. Unfortunately, the same pattern continues. DWP refuses the housing costs element, provides little or no intelligible explanation, allows arrears and anxiety to mount, and then often revises the decision only once an appeal is imminent or already underway.

The latest example involves a tenant who moved into a house in multiple occupation in March 2026. He supplied his assured shorthold tenancy agreement (AST) and a landlord’s letter confirming the rent, his occupation of the property, and the landlord’s willingness to provide any further information needed to facilitate payment of the Universal Credit housing costs element. That evidence went directly to the three essential questions: occupation, liability and commerciality.

Despite that, DWP refused the claim. The claimant was told he could not verify his housing costs because he could not produce a Council Tax bill in his own name. That should never have been treated as a determinative problem. In an HMO, Council Tax liability rests with the landlord rather than the occupier. A tenant cannot be penalised for failing to produce a document that, by reason of the accommodation type, he would not normally receive.

DWP also rejected an EDF Energy bill on the basis that it appeared to have been digitally altered. The claimant disputed this and produced a later bill showing the same name and address details. His landlord had also confirmed that utility bills were not the tenant’s responsibility. In those circumstances, the proper course was obvious: if DWP believed there were discrepancies, a Decision Maker should have identified them clearly and considered the further evidence. Instead, the matter was mishandled through a “Complaint’s” response.

Entitlement decisions belong with Decision Makers

This is not a mere service complaint. It is an entitlement dispute. If DWP refuses the housing costs element, the claimant is entitled to know why. The decision, and any Mandatory Reconsideration Notice, should explain the factual and evidential basis for refusal. A bland journal entry such as “housing costs not verified” is not good enough. It does not identify what evidence was accepted, what was rejected, what alleged discrepancy exists, or what the claimant can do to answer it.

The official guidance recognises that tenants may be asked for evidence such as a current tenancy agreement, rent statement, rent book, or a signed landlord letter confirming that they live there, pay rent and are living there legally.

Where a landlord has provided a tenancy agreement and a direct written confirmation of rent, occupation and willingness to cooperate, DWP should not default to refusal simply because one preferred document is unavailable. Nor should it hide behind unexplained references to “inconsistencies” or “discrepancies”. If an allegation is being used to refuse entitlement, procedural fairness demands that the claimant be advised of the concerns so he can respond.

ICE is not the route for entitlement disputes

The complaints response ended by suggesting the claimant could complain to the Independent Case Examiner. That is misleading in this context. ICE can consider maladministration and service failure after DWP’s complaints process has been exhausted, but it cannot determine whether a claimant is legally entitled to the housing costs element. That is for DWP Decision Makers and, if necessary, the First-tier Tribunal.

Members should be alert to this distinction. A complaint may sit alongside an entitlement challenge where DWP has delayed, failed to follow procedure or handled evidence poorly. But a complaint must not be allowed to replace a Mandatory Reconsideration or tribunal appeal where the substance of the dispute is entitlement to benefit.

Practical steps for members

When DWP posts “housing costs not verified” without a proper decision letter or explanation, do not allow the case to drift. Ask immediately for the decision to be revised and for the Decision Maker to identify the exact evidential issue. If a Mandatory Reconsideration Notice has been issued, appeal without delay. If DWP has failed to provide a proper decision letter or has not explained the need for an MR, consider appealing directly with HMCTS, explaining that the claimant was not given adequate notice of the decision or route of challenge.

In HMO cases, make the evidential package as clear as possible. Provide the tenancy agreement, landlord letter, rent account or arrears statement, any available bank statements or correspondence showing the claimant at the address, and a short explanation that Council Tax and utilities are landlord liabilities where applicable. Ask the landlord to confirm the tenancy start date, rent, arrears, occupation, whether bills are included, and whether the arrangement is commercial.

The tribunal route can take months, but in my experience these cases are often revised once a more experienced Decision Maker reviews the evidence properly. That does not excuse the unnecessary distress caused to tenants and landlords in the meantime. DWP should not be forcing claimants into appeals simply because its internal teams fail to explain decisions, misunderstand HMO Council Tax liability, or refuse to disclose the alleged evidential problem.

Regards

Bill Irvine

Phone 07733 080 389