× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Board and lodging, caravan site rental and moorings under UC

chris smith
forum member

HB Help, Sussex

Send message

Total Posts: 82

Joined: 18 June 2010

I’ve just had this answer from the DWP

“As before I have obtained some guidance from policy colleagues:

The type (or size) of the accommodation the claimant lives in is irrelevant.  They get the lower of the LHA (based on the size of the extended benefit unit) or actual rent.

If it’s a private sector rent, then the method is to compare the allowable amount(s) against the appropriate LHA rate and pay whatever is the lower.

So, the LHA rate isn’t based on the accommodation you occupy, but on the number of people in what we term is your UC extended benefit unit. So if you are single, and over 35, for example, you qualify for the one bedroom rate.

That rate is then compared against your eligible payments (whatever they might be - could be B&L could be site rental/mooring fees) and the lower amount paid.”

That can’t be right can it?  If so it is a major change to board and lodging rules

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 2015

Joined: 16 June 2010

Well, site and mooring fees are defined by Sch.2(1) as rent while tent pitching fees aren’t.

Reg. 26(2) makes people paying rent ‘Renters’ so Sch. 4 applies to caravans and houseboats.

Sch. 4 (3)(1) makes their payments a ‘relevant payment’

That seems to mean that Sch. 4 (8)(1) applies and that a determination of appropriate size needs to be made.

If under Sch. 4 (2)(1) they’re not paying fees to a social landlord then it seems, on a first reading, that the core rent and cap rent (ie LHA) bits apply.


For boarders, much the same, as

Sch.1 (2) seems to include the accommodation charge while (3)(g) excludes the meals, heating etc. under Sch. 4 (7)(2)(a).

Sch. 4 (7)(4) then, presumably requires a determination of the relevant split of any payments.

This is making my head spin, but is clearly a demonstration of the new simple system.

[ Edited: 21 Dec 2012 at 05:19 pm by Gareth Morgan ]