Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Too complicated and confusing to account for 53 week rent years in UC awards
NHF doesn’t understand the arithmetic. There are two issues here, as this thread has very clearly shown:
- first, in all weekly rent cases, whether public or private sector, UC very slightly short-changes the claimant every single year. This has nothing to do with 53-week rent years, it is simply a product of the way weekly amounts are converted to monthly amounts and it could be fixed very easily as Timothy Seaside describes above.
- second, if you take any arbitrary sequence of 53 weeks - whether they run from April to April or any other time of year - in which there are 53 instances or “gales” (me neither) of rent falling due, and compare with the instances of any calendar monthly item during those same 53 weeks (be that item UC payments, salary payments or whatever) then obviously they don’t exactly match. No-one is losing a week’s money for that reason - it comes with next month’s UC payment.
What’s a ‘gale’? Google only suggests properties to rent in Portugal.
Another term for rent, tax, fee etc. Historically used in the context of rent paid to a landowner to exploit the mineral right on/under their land (the landed gentry not lowering themselves to engage in such trade or commerce). They would probably also take a ‘royalty’ on every ton of mineral extracted, moved over their land on tramways etc. One of the many reason why The industrial revolution happened in Britain is that landowners / the state/Crown allowed this kind of exploitation of resources by other individuals /joint stock companies rather than being tightly controlled by the state. It is unlikely that a landowner like Ross Poldark would have owned or operated mines on his own land having neither the inclination or capital to do so!
“Gale”
Its a bit galling that officials use gale, when they could have chosen a simpler more exact term.
Just saying….
I’ve had a look at the NHF report and they’re clearly misunderstanding the whole issue. I have tried to explain the issues in a blog post at https://benefitsinthefuture.com/weekly-rent-and-universal-credit-dont-panic/ (with a bonus bit on the history of the Gregorian calendar changes and the calendar riots of 1752).
There’s also a link to a Reckoner that works out the UC and rent weeks figures over a two year period including rent free weeks.
In summary:
53 Rent-days is not the same as 53 weeks rent in the year! Please look at a calendar!
As I previously observed - it is an accounting and conceptual problem with the calendar year because it is not exactly 364 days long (but is exactly 12 months and UC ‘assessment periods’ long) that social landlords need to get over!
‘Tea cup in a storm’ observed Alice.
There is the separate issue of calculating rent liability by multiplying rent by 52 then dividing by 12 etc. It will be interesting to see if this little storm around 53 rent weeks leads to any change in that formula now that Rudd is apparently in ‘listening mode’. After all the concept of ‘daily rates’ / liability, 365(6) divided by 12 etc are hardly an alien concept to the benefits / tax credits system.
I’ve had a look at the NHF report and they’re clearly misunderstanding the whole issue. I have tried to explain the issues in a blog post at https://benefitsinthefuture.com/weekly-rent-and-universal-credit-dont-panic/ (with a bonus bit on the history of the Gregorian calendar changes and the calendar riots of 1752).
You are right about the 53 weeks.
However, on the general issue of the use of calendar and UC, most of the changes of the Western calendar (Islamic calendar is different) are to make adjustments to move away from a Lunar calendar, to a more “accurate” Solar Lunar hybrid. (clearly some would not accept the “accurate” part of the statement for religious reasons)
UC by insisting on monthly assessments of wages, irrespective, is really a throwback towards the sole use of a less “accurate” more ancient lunar monthly (based on moons) calendar. Even though it has been presented as a more modern simpler approach the concentration on monthly wages within UC is recreating the sort of problems that calendar reforming folks in the West have been trying to eliminate for a long while. (Since Augustus?)
In some ways its the officials at the DWP who haven’t grasped the subtlety and have caused these worries over the calendar.
But as stated you are right about the 53 weeks.
From Inside Housing:
A spokesperson for the DWP told Inside Housing: “We listen carefully to feedback about Universal Credit and continue to make improvements where necessary.
“We have heard the concerns of social landlords and have moved social landlord payments to a monthly cycle in 2019 as a result.”
Article also references Neil Couling’s December 2018 letter:
In December, the DWP wrote to Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation (NHF), confirming the change ...
That’s giving the HA 12 payments a year instead of 13. It doesn’t affect the weekly / monthly issue. The article also manages to decide that the current cycle of giving HAs 13 payments a year instead of 12 means that there’s one month without any rent payment ????
I think how it works at the moment is they get a monthly amount of money 12 times out of 13: one four-weekly payment has to be skipped (presumably the one when there would otherwise be two deductions from one month’s UC). This means that they are receiving 12 payments per year, each consisting of one calendar month’s rent; and under the new system they will receive … (all together now) 12 payments per year, each consisting of one calendar month’s rent. But the timing of the payments will not be as clunky as it currently is, where they come a bit too frequently most of the time and then suddenly there is an eight week hiatus - the new arrangements announced in the article will spread the payments more evenly throughout the year.
I think how it works at the moment is they get a monthly amount of money 12 times out of 13: one four-weekly payment has to be skipped (presumably the one when there would otherwise be two deductions from one month’s UC).
I’m told they get 13 payments, one every 4 weeks of the year.
Here’s the guidance. I am looking at heading 8.4 and the way I read it is that they pay monthly amounts four weekly, skipping one of the four-weekly pay dates. I could be wrong - not working for a social landlord myself I am just going by the guidance, maybe someone who actually handles these payments can confirm which it is?
You’re right, I found that I’d actually written about that last year. Its seems though that it might be different in NI, where I was told that, Looking at Housing Advice NI’s website they give an example of
“Sarah is claiming Housing Benefit and receives £42.15 each week. Her rent is £190 a month. During the course of a year, Sarah’s landlord will receive 13 payments of Housing Benefit from the Housing Executive in respect of Sarah’s tenancy. Every four weeks, Sarah’s landlord receives £168.60 from Housing Benefit and Sarah pays her landlord £21.40 each month to make up the difference. Sarah will be entitled to keep the 13th payment of Housing Benefit as she has already covered her full year’s rent with combined payments of rent in advance, 12 payments of Housing Benefit and 12 shortfall payments of £21.40.”
On the other hand their guidance says the same as GB.
It wouldn’t surely be possible that DWP aren’t following their own guidance?
HB Anorak’s understanding is spot on.
RSL’s receive 12 monthly amounts throughout the year and receive these every 4 weeks, therefore on one 4 weekly payment date nothing is received. The missing payment date can be worked out for each claimant based on their assessment period and the RSL’s DWP Schedule Payment dates.
The example above from Housing Advice NI looks as if it is quoting Housing Benefit payments where a 4 weekly payment can be made 13 times a year, rather than UC payments?
The example above from Housing Advice NI looks as if it is quoting Housing Benefit payments where a 4 weekly payment can be made 13 times a year, rather than UC payments?
You’re right too. I don’t know why I was sent that as an example of UC. I’ll get my coat.