Good morning

My latest bulletin represents an update on one started more than 1 year ago. The claimant, referred to as Mr W, is physically and mentally vulnerable and migrated to UC in March 2025. He had lived in the same property for around 20 years, paid rent throughout, and previously received Housing Benefit. DWP nevertheless refused housing costs because the tenant and landlord were related., viewing the tenancy as being contrived to abuse the scheme, despite the local council having paid housing benefit for more than a decade.

Key Facts

The facts were straightforward. Mr W’s tenancy was long-standing, rent had been paid, and Housing Benefit had previously been awarded on substantially the same arrangement. The issue was not whether the parties were related, but whether there was a genuine commercial rental liability. DWP appeared to approach the case with a presumption of suspicion rather than properly assess the facts and evidence. A parent providing a property for a disabled son so that he can live close by is neither illegal nor immoral. Plus the tenancy agreement was 10 years old, so how could “contrivance to abuse UC” possibly apply?

The Appeal and DWP’s Response

The matter was first raised with DWP’s Directorate in April 2025 in the hope that senior managers would recognise the merit of the case and avoid lengthy tribunal proceedings. Instead, DWP failed to answer the key questions or provide a detailed explanation for maintaining the refusal, so an appeal was lodged in July 2025.

After months of no action from DWP, the Tribunal Service was asked to seek the intervention of a District Judge. A Directions Notice gave DWP a further month to respond, but DWP failed to comply. The matter had to be pursued again through a Legal Officer before DWP eventually conceded fully one year after the appeal was lodged. It promised to backdate the housing costs award to March 2025. No explanation or apology was offered. For Mr W, the delay caused avoidable anxiety about whether he could remain in his home.

Unequal Standards and Procedural Unfairness

The case also exposes a wider inequity. DWP routinely expects claimants to respond to information requests within short timescales, often 14 to 30 days, with suspension or termination following quickly if they fail to comply. Yet when DWP fails to answer questions, respond to prompts, or comply with tribunal directions, there is often no equivalent consequence.

Where awards exist, claimants are often told their award has been “closed” even though an Upper-tier Judge has ruled this is “legal nonsense”. In these instances, DWP insists a new claim is required before any further exchange can take place, close down journals, frustrating exchanges and creating an unpaid gap in entitlement between claims. Combined with increasing appeal timescales, this is wholly inequitable and prejudicial, particularly where the claimant is vulnerable, and the delay has been caused by DWP’s own failure to engage.

Practice Points for Members

  • Do not accept refusal simply because landlord and tenant are related.
  • Require DWP to identify evidence of non-commerciality or contrivance.
  • Emphasise long occupation, rent payment history, written terms and previous Housing Benefit awards.
  • Where DWP delays or fails to respond, seek tribunal directions promptly.

Conclusion

This case should never have required a year-long appeal. It demonstrates the harm caused when DWP applies suspicion rather than fact and evidence to related-party tenancies, while holding claimants to strict deadlines it does not meet itself. Members should challenge similar refusals robustly and press for proper, timely decision-making where vulnerable claimants are at risk.

If you require clarification on this or any other related topic, please contact bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389.

Reagrds

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy ltd.

www.ucadvice.co.uk