Universal credit housing element

jemima72

We have just had our first UC statement and they have missed off our housing element because their system didn't recognise the name of the council.

We live in a house provided by the school my husband works at and only pay £115 rent per month, so not having the housing element included will cause an overpayment as the work allowance is more than if housing is included. 

Does anyone know if we can just not have a housing element, or would this not be allowed as we would be better off?

calcotti

As far as I know you don’t have to as the housing element if you don’t want to but I’m not sure you would select your housing status.

tacpot12

One way to find out is to ask your Work Coach to remove the Housing Element from your claim. I think that it will be possible to do so. It would be great if you could come back to the thread and update it if you are successful. 

huckster

Have come across this before, when the work allowance would mean that a claimant is better off not having Housing on the claim.

Suggest that you report the change under where you live and what it costs from the same date as your previous reporting, saying that you do not have housing costs.  But to then also send a journal message explaining that the Housing costs you have to pay is only £115 per month, as it is housing provided by the school at a reduced cost and that you do not want Housing as part of your UC claim.  And that due to the Work Allowance you are better off not having such a low amount of Housing as part of a benefit claim.

By doing this, it will then be up to the Universal Credit Service Centre what they want to do.  They could refer it to a Decision Maker to review.  When I looked into this issue before, there was nothing in the UC legislation to force anyone to have Housing in the same situation. 

jemima72

Thanks all. At the moment I am waiting for a reply to my message telling them the name of the council and asking if it is possible to not have a housing element. Am now wondering if I should push for it not to be included if there is nothing in the legislation saying you have to have it. 

If they say I should have housing included and say I have had an overpayment that I have to pay back is it worth appealing this as it was their fault and I declared eveything accurately?

NedS

jemima72 said:

We have just had our first UC statement and they have missed off our housing element because their system didn't recognise the name of the council.

We live in a house provided by the school my husband works at and only pay £115 rent per month, so not having the housing element included will cause an overpayment as the work allowance is more than if housing is included. 

Does anyone know if we can just not have a housing element, or would this not be allowed as we would be better off?

Why are the housing costs so low? Are you paying lower rent in exchange for a reduced salary for your husband?

If so, I'm wondering if they may choose to treat it as notional income if he is maybe being paid less than would be the going rate in exchange for cheap housing?

jemima72

NedS said:

jemima72 said:

We have just had our first UC statement and they have missed off our housing element because their system didn't recognise the name of the council.

We live in a house provided by the school my husband works at and only pay £115 rent per month, so not having the housing element included will cause an overpayment as the work allowance is more than if housing is included. 

Does anyone know if we can just not have a housing element, or would this not be allowed as we would be better off?

Why are the housing costs so low? Are you paying lower rent in exchange for a reduced salary for your husband?

If so, I'm wondering if they may choose to treat it as notional income if he is maybe being paid less than would be the going rate in exchange for cheap housing?

No, I think he is being paid what would be the going rate for a caretaker. 

It is deducted from his wages, so would notional income be if they treated it as if his net pay was after the £115 had been deducted rather than adding it back on, if that makes sense?

jemima72

I will also add that I have contacted Citizens Advice and they just suggested asking for an upload facility to show them our tenancy agreement and that I have done the correct thing declaring the housing, but no one seems to know the answer to my question of whether I can just not have the housing element. Very frustrating! 

NedS

jemima72 said:

NedS said:

jemima72 said:

We have just had our first UC statement and they have missed off our housing element because their system didn't recognise the name of the council.

We live in a house provided by the school my husband works at and only pay £115 rent per month, so not having the housing element included will cause an overpayment as the work allowance is more than if housing is included. 

Does anyone know if we can just not have a housing element, or would this not be allowed as we would be better off?

Why are the housing costs so low? Are you paying lower rent in exchange for a reduced salary for your husband?

If so, I'm wondering if they may choose to treat it as notional income if he is maybe being paid less than would be the going rate in exchange for cheap housing?

No, I think he is being paid what would be the going rate for a caretaker. 

It is deducted from his wages, so would notional income be if they treated it as if his net pay was after the £115 had been deducted rather than adding it back on, if that makes sense?

His wages reported to UC should be the figure before the £150 for rent has been deducted. He gets paid in full, and then pays the rent out of his income like everyone else does.

jemima72

NedS said:

jemima72 said:

NedS said:

jemima72 said:

We have just had our first UC statement and they have missed off our housing element because their system didn't recognise the name of the council.

We live in a house provided by the school my husband works at and only pay £115 rent per month, so not having the housing element included will cause an overpayment as the work allowance is more than if housing is included. 

Does anyone know if we can just not have a housing element, or would this not be allowed as we would be better off?

Why are the housing costs so low? Are you paying lower rent in exchange for a reduced salary for your husband?

If so, I'm wondering if they may choose to treat it as notional income if he is maybe being paid less than would be the going rate in exchange for cheap housing?

No, I think he is being paid what would be the going rate for a caretaker. 

It is deducted from his wages, so would notional income be if they treated it as if his net pay was after the £115 had been deducted rather than adding it back on, if that makes sense?

His wages reported to UC should be the figure before the £150 for rent has been deducted. He gets paid in full, and then pays the rent out of his income like everyone else does.

Yes that's what they did. Sorry, I don't understand the notional income thing. 

But as they have used that figure but not included the housing element we will have had an overpayment as the work allowance is more without housing.

NedS

jemima72 said:

NedS said:

jemima72 said:

NedS said:

jemima72 said:

We have just had our first UC statement and they have missed off our housing element because their system didn't recognise the name of the council.

We live in a house provided by the school my husband works at and only pay £115 rent per month, so not having the housing element included will cause an overpayment as the work allowance is more than if housing is included. 

Does anyone know if we can just not have a housing element, or would this not be allowed as we would be better off?

Why are the housing costs so low? Are you paying lower rent in exchange for a reduced salary for your husband?

If so, I'm wondering if they may choose to treat it as notional income if he is maybe being paid less than would be the going rate in exchange for cheap housing?

No, I think he is being paid what would be the going rate for a caretaker. 

It is deducted from his wages, so would notional income be if they treated it as if his net pay was after the £115 had been deducted rather than adding it back on, if that makes sense?

His wages reported to UC should be the figure before the £150 for rent has been deducted. He gets paid in full, and then pays the rent out of his income like everyone else does.

Yes that's what they did. Sorry, I don't understand the notional income thing. 

Notional income (although it doesn't sound like it applies here from what you have said):

Say, for example the wage for a full time caretaker were minimum wage equating to around £1500/month, but the employer only paid £1000/month because they had made a notional deduction of £500/month to cover "rent" for allowing use of an on-site property. UC may decide that they had an additional notional income of £500 in addition to the £1000 they were being paid, as they are being paid this in kind. The reason I asked the question was because rent of £150/month is not typical of market rates, which means either they are being extremely generous or they are providing a benefit in kind that may potentially be treated as notional income.