Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Removal of Housing Costs element for under 21s
Has anyone any thoughts on how this is going to work in practice? If a young claimant is relying, for example, on the exemption:
- cannot live with their parents due to a serious risk to their physical or mental health and the Secretary of State considers it inappropriate to expect them to do so.
At what stage is the young person going to find out whether the SoS considers it inappropriate? After they have already signed a Tenancy Agreement and made a claim for UC? This would create all manner of difficulties. How would a homeless charity, for example, decide whether or not it could help to rehouse someone without knowing whether or not they are going to get any Housing Costs?
Or is there likely to be a mechanism for deciding in advance whether someone may be exempt?
And what happens if someone is homeless and in priority need, etc., so the LA has a duty to them but they don’t fit into the exemption criteria and therefore can’t get Housing Costs?
Hi Billy,
I was seeing the same problem. I don’t see any scenario where DWP will make a decision before a claim for UC or before a Change in Circs (i.e. starting to pay Housing Costs). I suspect it will have to be done after. I am not in full service yet so unlikely to get this for a considerable length of time, I was going to raise it at a local liaison meeting in a few weeks.
I suspect that the way this is worded is going to make it far too discretionary and I can see a lot of appeals in relation to this. I do think that most of the other exemptions are going to mean that the numbers affected are going to be low but the shocking thing is that I feel a lot of the most vulnerable people will have to rely on this exempting factor and will find themselves having to plead their case to the DWP and as we all know the most vulnerable are often the ones that don’t seek help.
I was very disappointed that people with LCWRA weren’t included in the exemptions, granted they are possibly going to be entitled to PIP, but nonetheless I think that could cause problems as they are clearly not fit for work.
I thought that they were included in the list of exemptions. This new restriction only applies to people who are subject to all work related requirements. S22 of the WRA 2012 defines such a person as not falling into S19-21 of the Act. S19 2 a) says
(2)
A claimant falls within this section if—
.
(a)
the claimant has limited capability for work and work-related activity,
What do you think?
Only single claimants who are within the all work requirements are caught by the regs
It will be a problem for those not yet assessed as UC places people into the all work requirements group until assessed (unless already determined under ESA)
The ‘inappropriate’ test is also a bit wider than reported here:
(e) in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents, including (but not limited to) in circumstances where there would be a serious risk to the renter’s physical or mental health, or the renter would suffer significant harm, if the renter lived with them;
Key bit is ‘not limited to’ so the test of inappropriateness is far wider. Someone who is homeless but is housed in Private Accommodation so not exempted would likely have been assessed to see whether they could stay with Parents by the Local Authority that houses them
I tried to answer this in another place….......MY FEELING is that YOU HAVE TO READ IN HOMELESSNESS….when they mention temp??
“(c) the renter meets the occupation condition in respect of temporary accommodation (within the meaning of paragraph 21);”
Which implies that all the age group accommodated via partvii Homelessness Act 1996 are exempt if you place them via this mechanism??
Welcome your views Netters…........... because I am confused
Urgent question is due in House of Commons at 12:30….
Some of the more pertinent questions and answers from the debate amidst the blah blah. Looks like they are going to introduce some sort of reporting mechanism for young people to inform of difficulties preventing them from living at home which will (somehow) feed into the UC decision making process:
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit can still be paid is if“in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents”. Does the Secretary of State assume that this exemption will automatically apply where the parents refuse to have their child living with them?
Caroline Nokes
Absolutely. That is a point. A very important exemption is included, so where that is inappropriate—where a parent cannot or will not accommodate their child—such people will be exempt from the policy.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Further to the question from the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), will the Minister confirm what I believe she said earlier, which is that the only thing necessary for a young person to demonstrate before being entitled to the housing element of universal credit is that their parent has said that they cannot live at home?
Caroline Nokes
Yes, and I think I have made that very clear. If it is inappropriate for a young person to live at home with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The principal reason why young people become homeless is a relationship breakdown with their family. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State, not by local decision makers who may discriminate against young people when they cannot live with their family?
Caroline Nokes
I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work on the Homelessness Reduction Bill. Absolutely: it is a question of young people informing a work coach, somebody in the local authority or a trusted medical professional of their inability to live at home because their relationship with their parent has broken down, and in those cases they will receive the exemption.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The young people the Minister describes bear no resemblance to the young people I used to work with at the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, many of whom had experienced horrendous physical, mental and emotional abuse, which meant that they understandably no longer had a relationship with their families. How does she expect those young people to prove that they cannot return home? They cannot simply pick up the phone to their parents, and they should not be forced to recount to a stranger again and again the stories of what had happened to them. What will the Minister do to make sure that young people are not subjected to reliving the horrendous abuse that they have already suffered?
Caroline Nokes
Those who have reported abuse to a stakeholder or a trusted professional will be exempt from the policy. It is our intention to ensure that we establish a long list of stakeholders who can take on that reporting. It should, of course, be the case that they should only have to report it once.
Caroline Nokes
The policy is expected to affect 5,000 young people in the first year, and 10,000 a year in steady state.
I have heard via a DWP webinar that the DWP will follow the LA decision so if the LA decides they have a duty to house a young person under homelessness legislation because they are estranged from family and cannot live with them then DWP will accept this too.
New Common Library briefing:
Housing cost element of Universal Credit: withdrawing entitlement from 18-21 year olds
Thanks Shawn.
Best explanation of exemptions yet.
Hi all, any thoughts on 16, 17 year olds? I know that there are exemptions to withdrawing entitlement to UC housing element re18 - 21 year olds, but what about 16, 17 year olds who can claim UC in certain circumstances - I wonder what’s the story re their housing element within UC?
I think they are not covered by this, it is very specific concerning age (18+ but under 22). The original aim was to affect claimants aged 16-24 but DWP changed its mind.
I assume 16-17 year olds will get housing costs if they actually get through the process of qualifying for UC at all. Arguably you have to be fairly vulnerable to achieve this in the first place.