Really worried I'm going to get no Universal credit & won't be able to afford to work

kyte

I have a bit of a complex situation and really need some advice,please?

I'm currently on Jobseekers, living in the marital home with my two children and in the process of divorcing.

In less than a month the children and I are moving away to a new city where I have a job as a part time vicar (£12k per year). I have to live in the vicarage (which I'm grateful for), but only have a fixed contract. If I lose my job, I lose my home too.

As far as the divorce is concerned, the vicarage does not mean that we're adequately housed. So the settlement will somehow involve getting enough capital to buy somewhere, with a small mortgage.

Under tax credits this isn't an issue. People in tied housing can nominate their sole property as their principal private residence and it's just the income from it that's assessed.

But under Universal Credit, would I lose all my tax credits?

You see, vicars work longer hours than you'd think, so the minimum childcare costs I'd have would be £450 per month. I'm fully reliant on tax credits, especially the childcare element, to be able to afford to work.

I understand the whole concept behind Universal credit. But I'm really worried that because I can't live in my own home, due to my job, I'm suddenly going to be much worse off than I currently am on Jobseekers.

And it's ironic, because if i lost my job and had to live in my own house, I'd qualify for Universal credit.

This can't really be how it works,can it?

My solicitor has reassured me that while we're still mediating, the house capital won't count. But the minute the divorce is finalised, I'll lose almost £900 in tax credits...and then can't afford to support the children and I.

I'm really worried. I can't just quit running a church the way you could a normal job. And if I did that, I'd not qualify anyway,would I?

Anyone know if there's any kind of exemptions etc for people who have to live in tied housing?

FBaby

Do you actually have to live in the vicarage? Surely if it is not considered as adequate housing for you and your family, they can't force you to live there to keep your job?

kyte

It's habitable

Legally,the vicarage is not considered adequate housing in a divorce because:

- It's tied to the job. No job = no home. Which is not acceptable, legally, when you are the resident parent because you and your children could suddenly end up homeless

- It leads to inequality in retirement if the other person uses the capital from the marital home to buy a house, but the person in the vicarage is not allowed to do so.


This was all fine under all the previous systems because you could nominate your only owned home as your principal private residence. But this seems not to have been considered under UC.

If there truly is no exemption for those living in tied housing (vicars, armed forces, caretakers), there will be a lot of people (particularly with children) suddenly reassessing whether they can afford to work in these professions/vocations or whether they need to get a 'normal' job where they live in their home.

MissMoneypenny

I thought the childcare element was being split from benefits and a set amount will go to parents as a tax free lump sum in future?

• Is the vicarage rent free?
• Are all or some bills at the vicarage paid by the church in addition to your 12k salary?
• If you elect to live in a vicarage instead of your own property, then I assume you will rent your own property out? Have you looked at how much you will make from letting your property and worked out your tax deductables on the rent you will receive to see how much you will make?
• You can still claim child benefit if you chose to live in the vicarage instead of your own property.
• Have you asked the church if they can provide free childcare for the times when you can't be with your children?

If you calulate all this, you can then work out if you will end up with more money living at the vicarage or living in your own property.

MissMoneypenny

kyte wrote: »

If there truly is no exemption for those living in tied housing (vicars, armed forces, caretakers), there will be a lot of people (particularly with children) suddenly reassessing whether they can afford to work in these professions/vocations or whether they need to get a 'normal' job where they live in their home.

I should imagine that armed forces will have an exception when their unit is deployed elsewhere as they don't get a choice where they live.

sheramber

There is a disregard for a property that you have lived in and intend to return to but I don't know if it would apply in your case if you have not peviously lived in the house.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380246/admh2.pdf

H2037 and H2038

rogerblack

kyte wrote: »

It's habitable

Legally,the vicarage is not considered adequate housing in a divorce because:

If you don't live in a property you can sell, then it would normally count as assets for means-tested benefits.
However - while if you lived in the vicarage the owned property would probably stop you getting benefits, the other way round certainly isn't the case, unless you can sell the vicarage.

kyte

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I should imagine that armed forces will have an exception when their unit is deployed elsewhere as they don't get a choice where they live.

I don't get a choice where I live. I'm considered in the same category as armed forces in terms of having to live where I work, in a house supplied by my employer as a requirement of the job.

I have not found any exceptions yet. If you can link me to one that would help loads

kyte

sheramber wrote: »

There is a disregard for a property that you have lived in and intend to return to but I don't know if it would apply in your case if you have not peviously lived in the house.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380246/admh2.pdf

H2037 and H2038

That's both helpful and frustrating (because STBXH is insisting we sell the marital home)

FBaby

in a house supplied by my employer as a requirement of the job.

The question is whether it is offered, but up to you to take the offer, or whether your contract stipulates that you have to live on the premises.

GirlFromMars_2

Have you tried talking to the church about this? If the church are paying people low enough salaries that they need to rely on Working Tax Credits/Universal Credit then it's going to be something that will affect a number of people. And helpfully I believe there are plenty of Bishops in the House of Lords, so you should be pretty well represented if it comes to working out new legislation!

I think the problem arises because as I understand it, you plan to own a property that you will not live in at all until you lose your job. And you plan to rent it out.

If you were able to live in the property you own part time with your family, then could it be considered your home, and the work premises, just for work?

If you are letting it out, then I feel it should count as capital, as you obviously wouldn't be using it. Are you reliant on the rental income for the property?

If a soldier was living away from home to work, then I doubt very much that they would be renting out their home while they were away.

Is it just the fact that you are renting it out that is the problem?