Hi. I have just spoken to the benefits team here and they have told me that anyone who has had a PTD, prior to accepting a tenancy, is unlikely to be given a Descretionary Housing Payment. They argue that a PTD is used to determine whether they can or can not afford the property. The customer I queried this on is not on full benefit and works, so until benefit was sorted was unlikely to have known what benefit he would receive. Manual calculations prior to a decision are almost unheard of here.
Does this seem right and are any other people experiancing similar in respect of DHP's.

If a person takes on the tenancy (after getting a PTD) and then claims benefit and it dosn't meet the full rent and they ask for a DHP the fact that they've had a PDT and still taken on the tenancy does, in my experience, affect the decision on the DHP request.

It depends on the reason for taking on the tenancy in the first place i suppose, if the client had no other choice they should state this clearly on the form when they request a DHP.

I've known a DHP be granted in these circumstances but it is the exception rather than the norm.

I agree that the PTD will be an influence in a DHP decision. However, you should take the full circumstances of the case into account.

For example, a working claimant might still take up the tenancy as they believe they can make up the difference between the PTD and the rent themselves. If they then lose their job they will find themselves unable to make up the shortfall themselves and should be considered for a DHP.

I can see the logic of this approach when a claimant will be entitled to full benefit. I'm worried, because at this council, the main point of contact is a customer service centre where they are neither capable or expected to perform manual calculations prior to the benefit award. I feel it is unfair to place too much emphasis upon PTD's where the customer is not going to receive full benefit (i.e not on income support, JSA, PC(GC) or way belew the applicable amount)and is unlikely to be given a manual calculation beforehand.

Neil,

The principle is not uncommon, basically if presented with a DHP application where the claimant is expected to be aware of a potential shortfall in HB compared to rent, having obtained a PTD then this may be considered to have contributed to the claimant's financial difficulties. Each LA would have their own view but as has been mentioned by a couple of other contributers is not something that scuppers the application for DHP completely.

However, picking up on the point of the claimant not knowing what benefit they are likely to receive, many LA's now have on-line benefit calculators on their websites which will give a pretty good indication (as long as everything is entered correctly) of the benefit award that is likely to be paid.

Ours is at http://www.oxford.gov.uk/services/housing-benefits-calculator.cfm but there are many others about.

From the original post it sounds to me like the LA are wide open to Judicial Review if the sole reasoning for refusal is that a PTD was carried out.

The PTD could, of course, form part of the reasoning but not the sole reason IMHO.

I agree with John,

If the LA have fettered their discretion by using the fact that the sole reason for refusing the DHP was that the claimant had a PTD before moving in.
It is unreasonable to make a decision like this. A family's financial situation is often fluid, especially if there are children or people with disabilities involved.
The DHP is there to protect tenents from being evicted and to prevent unecessary poverty.
Does your local Authority have an "anti poverty strategy". These can be very useful when arguing for DHP's.

Hi Neil,‎

If I may digress on this thread.‎

I haven't come across your calculator before, but it has a similar template to other free ‎ones available online (in fact they are all a godsend for me when advising new tenants ‎etc.) However, one thing I am confused on concerning your calculator.‎

It states in the rent element that the client should ‘not include charges like meals’, but ‎if they enter the whole amount of the meals charges which is more than the deduction ‎for the board, then the residue after the deduction will not considered within the ‎calculation. I don't think it is clear that they have to supply the meals charge minus the ‎meals deduction amount (£20.05, £13.35 etc.). Surely, this will affect their calculated ‎rent?

I can understand the reasoning behind using PTD as an argument to refuse DHP (providing the LA do not fetter discretion) BUT the last refusal letter I saw from our LA actually stated that they were refusing the DHP because the claimant could have got a PTD but did not...
(the claimant has asked for a review of the decision)

Put together these two arguments would translate as we won't pay if your rent is capped, which severely limits the use of DHP. Perhaps they would still pay where circumstances have changed, but our LA just seem to ignore the details of personal circumstances they are given when they make the initial decision.

Though at least the damned if you do, damned if you don't approach doesn't make us regret telling clients renting privately to always get a PTD. (More than anything else we advise clients to get them because if people have not got a PTD and are evicted due to rent arrears they are often considered to be intentionally homeless).

I didn't know I was this bitter until I started typing... apologies.

Victoria.

Victoriaj
One option would be to use the freedom of information act to ask the Council concerned for a copy of it’s policy on DHPs.

This might help clarify what's what.