Good morning

Several website members have enquired about the recent High Court Judgement of R (Roberts) v Sec of State for W & Ps [2025] EWHC51 (Admin) and asked, to what extent, if any, the judgement might affect their ability to secure Managed Payments for the monthly rental charge, and Third Party Deductions (TPDs) for rent arrears.

Mr Roberts’ claim for Judicial Review

Mr Roberts, a tenant of Guinness, made the application on the basis, that he didn’t owe rent arrears and was in the process of leaving the property, stating in his application:

“The decision taken by the Secretary of State made on the 16th of March 2024 is unlawful as a matter of public law as the decision maker had failed to provide me with any opportunity to challenge or review the landlord’s application or its contents, under the scheme, before making his or her decision as per the Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014 …………..The guidance issued by the Secretary of State is unlawful as nowhere in the guidance does it offer the claimant (or affected person) the right to request a part in the decision-making process before a decision is made on deductions under the scheme as per R (Timson) -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ 656… ”

Court’s Ruling

The Court ruled, DWP must give notice to tenant claimants of its intention to make redirection of rent payments and arrears deductions BEFORE implementing the threat. Currently, the process, concerning social landlords, is for the landlord to apply using the “SRS landlord portal”. DWP’s system invariably redirects payments and makes arrears deductions, without requiring much by way of validation from the landlord nor offering the tenant a chance to challenge the appropriateness of any such action. It’s that process that was declared unlawful by the court. More details can be found in the Court transcript.

So, what’s to happen next?

DWP has undertaken to produce a revised policy and process, by the end of 2025 that incorporates an invitation to the tenant, to, if they wish, make representations objecting to the imposition of redirection. As the Court acknowledged, this is already a feature of the process applied to Private Landlords who don’t have access to the portal and must make their application online. On receipt of the application, DWP notifies the tenant of the landlord’s request to have their “housing costs element” redirected, and recoupment of rent arrears and offers 7 days to respond. If they do object, they must provide evidence to support their representations.

If DWP decides to implement the Managed Payment, claimants can request a “review” but an appeal is NOT permitted. In contrast, where the TPD is implemented, the tenant can submit both a Mandatory Reconsideration and an appeal. If either action succeeds, DWP would be forced to refund the tenant the amount previously deducted and presumably pursue the landlord for what would be deemed an “overpayment”. Under UC all overpayments are recoverable, even those caused by “official error”.

DWP’s interim proposal

Originally, DWP promised the Court that a new procedure would be in place by October 2024. That didn’t happen. Between now and DWP’s compliance (see para 24 judgement), it intends to continue implementing deductions while, at the same time, writing to SRS tenant claimants, offering the same arrangements as private tenants i.e. provide 7 days for them to indicate their wish to object and a further period of no less than 14 days to submit evidence in support of their position.

I’ll provide an update when DWP publishes its intentions. Meanwhile, if you require any further information on this or any other aspect of Housing Benefit or Universal Credit, please get in touch via phone or email bill@ucadvice.co.uk

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

Phone 07733 080 389 or 01698 424301

@Billirvine17