Universal credit and House benefits

calcotti

Rizidr wrote: »

What about the Council Tax Reduction ? Will it affect the CTR ?

As explained in my earlier posts (#5 and #7) the Council tax Reduction position is more complicated.

If you were the only adult in your property you would get a 25% single person discount. If you get Council Tax Reduction the amount of CTR would then be less because the actual Council Tax bill is reduced due the discount.

Because your partner lives with you the single person discount does not apply and you Council tax bill is therefore higher. You may therefore be getting more CTR as a result of your husband being with you and there is an argument that this can be seen as him having recourse to Public Funds which he is not supposed to do.

Note that if there are other adults in your house besides your husband then I don't think this is a problem but it's a specialist area and if you can get advice from an advice agency I would recommend doing so.

See this discussion https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/14047/#65894
See last page of this https://www.stockton.gov.uk/media/1958497/housing-solutions-nrpf-information-advice-pack.pdf

Rizidr

Thanks for your detailed response.

calcotti

Rizidr wrote: »

Thanks for your detailed response.

Should have said that the CTR issue is not related to whether or not your husband is named on the Council Tax bill - it will arise anyway if you are claiming CTR.

NedS

@calcotti

Just thinking out load how this may work in a case where a couple make a claim for UC and one member of the couple has NRPF, they are designated as an "ineligible partner" on the UC system, and as you correctly state, the personal element is paid at the single adult rate for the eligible claimant.

Thinking about the housing element, if they are both on the tenancy agreement (for example, a private tenancy), and one of them isn't eligible for public funds/UC, I'm wondering if UC may only pay half the housing costs, for the eligible adult as the ineligible partner is legally liable for the other half of the rent and UC can not pay it? Obviously if only the eligible person is on the tenancy then it's not an issue and the housing costs would be paid in full.

Wondering if you have any experience of such a case?

calcotti

NedS wrote: »

Thinking about the housing element, if they are both on the tenancy agreement (for example, a private tenancy), and one of them isn't eligible for public funds/UC, I'm wondering if UC may only pay half the housing costs, for the eligible adult as the ineligible partner is legally liable for the other half of the rent and UC can not pay it? Obviously if only the eligible person is on the tenancy then it's not an issue and the housing costs would be paid in full.

No experience of that but it's an interesting question. The LHA is the same so the maximum allowable rent is unchanged but I can see your line of thought re splitting the rent.

However I think the second part of the following guidance may apply:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/798300/admf2.pdf

Treated as liable to make payments
Certain other persons liable to make payments
F2087 A claimant will be treated as liable to make payments where the person who is liable is
1. any child or QYP the claimant (or if the claimant is a member of a couple, either member) is responsible for or
2. where the claimant is a member of a couple claiming as a single person, the other member of the couple.

I think (not 100% sure) that this means that the main claimant can be treated as fully liable for the rent.

calcotti

Have found this article https://medium.com/adviser/universal-credit-couple-claims-where-one-member-has-no-recourse-to-public-funds-e5aaf9ceac43

There is a cautionary note re possible impact on NRPF at the end of the article. However I think the risk only exists if there is a person on the tenancy who is not the partner of the UC claimant. The UC claimant is getting the same amount of UC housing element as they would if they were single as opposed to having a partner (given that they are allowed one bedroom whether single or with a partner) so NRPF partner has not benefited from an increase in UC payable.

It's a minefield! However I think UC has been constructed to make it less likely that persons subject to NRPF will accidentally breach the restrictions by being included on somebody else's benefit claim.