Housing Benefit and Universal Credit

peteuk

HopeLove said:

 No rent was paid on the caravan, it was purchased specifically because the council had not provided suitable temporary accommodation.

Just a thought but would the purchase of the caravan not change their housing need and subsequent claim for HB.  The results being a fresh UC claim as noted. 

HillStreetBlues

What could of happened is the benefits department gave their advice believing it would be weeks not years between moving to the new property.
Annoyingly if it had rented the caravan other than from family, then everything would have been fine.

Although unfair I can't thing of a way to make the LA reopen the housing benefits claim, apart from appealing and/or getting your MP involved,  but doubt even those would be successful.
 

HopeLove

HillStreetBlues said:

What could of happened is the benefits department gave their advice believing it would be weeks not years between moving to the new property.
Annoyingly if it had rented the caravan other than from family, then everything would have been fine.

Although unfair I can't thing of a way to make the LA reopen the housing benefits claim, apart from appealing and/or getting your MP involved,  but doubt even those would be successful.
 

Many thanks for your posts. Yes it does appear that all is against us. I was just hoping that we would have some sort of recourse for a remedy.
No rent was paid on the caravan, and it was not purchased by him.
I can't find any legislation to suggest there is a time limit to how long a claim can be put on hold before being transferred to a new address. 
As I mentioned before, the law regarding a change of circumstances was not written to take into account people being forced from their homes, and I was thinking whether we have a case to say that this a form of indirect discrimination, or Thlimmenos discrimination??

HillStreetBlues

HopeLove said:

As I mentioned before, the law regarding a change of circumstances was not written to take into account people being forced from their homes, and I was thinking whether we have a case to say that this a form of indirect discrimination, or Thlimmenos discrimination??

I not up on the laws on discrimination, but the issue I see, is your son isn't being denied a benefit, just the one he wants to claim.
I certainly can't blame anyone with SDP wanting to delay the move to UC.

If your son is forced onto UC, then if possible  might work out better in the long run  to wait until the benefit uplift in April to apply,  even though he won't be getting any money toward housing in the mean time.

 

HopeLove

HillStreetBlues said:

HopeLove said:

As I mentioned before, the law regarding a change of circumstances was not written to take into account people being forced from their homes, and I was thinking whether we have a case to say that this a form of indirect discrimination, or Thlimmenos discrimination??

I not up on the laws on discrimination, but the issue I see, is your son isn't being denied a benefit, just the one he wants to claim.
I certainly can't blame anyone with SDP wanting to delay the move to UC.

If your son is forced onto UC, then if possible  might work out better in the long run  to wait until the benefit uplift in April to apply,  even though he won't be getting any money toward housing in the mean time.

 

Yes thank you, I understand your point there. However, it's not a case of a new claim for Housing Benefit, rather I would argue that his previous claim should still be valid. It does state in the regulations that a transfer of address is not enough to trigger a claim to UC. I guess our issue is the length of time it took to complete the transfer, and because of that time, the local authority will say that he no longer had entitlement. That's two things then out of his control, and both are supposed to be the legal duty of the housing authority to deal with. ie, The initial need for a transfer, safe and secure accommodation, and also temporary accommodation in the interim.

poppy12345

2 years is a long time to for them to just suspend a claim. Had he been placed into temporary housing where rent needed to have been claimed through housing benefit then things may have been different.

I don't see it as discrimination, as it's the law that new claims for housing benefit in this situation are no longer possible. Yes it does say in the regulations that a transfer of address to the same Local Authority is not a change of circumstances that prompts a move to UC but he hasn't claimed for help with any rent for 2 years so there was nothing to transfer from.

Alice_Holt

 OP - it may be worth checking with Help to claim how UC transitional protection works in his circumstances. It's designed to ensure that there is no immediate drop in income as a consequence of losing the SDP.  However, I'm wondering if it would instantly be eroded by the inclusion of housing costs in the new UC claim.  

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/contact-us/help-to-claim/

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Universal-Credit-transitional-protection/What-is-Universal-Credit-transitional-protection

poppy12345

Alice_Holt said:

 OP - it may be worth checking with Help to claim how UC transitional protection works in his circumstances. It's designed to ensure that there is no immediate drop in income as a consequence of losing the SDP.  However, I'm wondering if it would instantly be eroded by the inclusion of housing costs in the new UC claim.  

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/contact-us/help-to-claim/

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Universal-Credit-transitional-protection/What-is-Universal-Credit-transitional-protection

If they are in the Support Group for ESA then they would be entitled to the LCWRA element from the start of the claim, as you know. SDP transitional protection (TP) of £120/month would then be included, which would erode over time. If housing costs were included in their claim from the start then this wouldn't erode the TP. What would erode it is the April increase so for this reason if possible it would be better to claim UC after the increase. (which i think was advised previously in the thread.)

HillStreetBlues

poppy12345 said:

If they are in the Support Group for ESA then they would be entitled to the LCWRA element from the start of the claim, as you know. SDP transitional protection (TP) of £120/month would then be included, which would erode over time. If housing costs were included in their claim from the start then this wouldn't erode the TP. What would erode it is the April increase so for this reason if possible it would be better to claim UC after the increase. (which i think was advised previously in the thread.)

That's what I thought.
But Alice's post has me thinking about it.
If it was a case of already claiming HB,  then it certainly wouldn't erode at that time.

But if a person isn't claiming HB,  then the UC claim with the HE included will be more than the ESA current claim.

So is it calculated like it would be if a person was already claiming HB, so keeps the TP?
Or is the TP  eaten up straight away when the HE is added to the UC claim?


As TP is suppose to keep current benefits from falling to sharply,  but in this case the benefit would rise.

poppy12345

HillStreetBlues said:

poppy12345 said:

If they are in the Support Group for ESA then they would be entitled to the LCWRA element from the start of the claim, as you know. SDP transitional protection (TP) of £120/month would then be included, which would erode over time. If housing costs were included in their claim from the start then this wouldn't erode the TP. What would erode it is the April increase so for this reason if possible it would be better to claim UC after the increase. (which i think was advised previously in the thread.)

So is it calculated like it would be if a person was already claiming HB, so keeps the TP?
Or is the TP  eaten up straight away when the HE is added to the UC claim?

If the HE isn't included in the first AP then it would erode the TP in the following AP. However, this is a moot point if the person is already paying their rent because the HE would then be included from the first AP.

If they were already claiming HB then there would be no need to claim UC.