Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
UC demanding tenancy agreements
Not sure whether this is a local problem or national so I’m scoping it out.
We’ve seen a number of cases where UC have demanded current tenancy agreements before they’ll pay the HCE.
Untidy tenancies or time expired agreements that have gone into rolling periodic tenancies are a bit of a theme.
Have we got a rogue actor at a local service centre or is it a broader problem?
I will be raising the current issue with our ACSSLs but is it something we need to shout about?
[ Edited: 4 Jul 2023 at 01:16 pm by Dan Manville ]Not sure whether this is a local problem or national so I’m scoping it out.
We’ve seen a number of cases where UC have demanded current tenancy agreements before they’ll pay the HCE.
Untidy tenancies or time expired agreements that have gone into rolling periodic tenancies are a bit of a theme.
Have we got a rogue actor at a local service centre or is it a broader problem?
I will be raising the current issue with our ACSSLs but is it something we need to shout about?
Yes please do Dan!
Within the Dorset JCP served by Ballymena Processing centre yes. Nothing has changed here since the onset of UCFS 06/12/2017.
I’m at a loss why something so simple to resolve - https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2023-0365/088_Joint_tenancies_V8-0.pdf because it would have impact on JCP workers workloads too as well as our clients.
This is a question posed for our local Partnership manager in advance of a meeting later this month.
What happens at the job centre when a UC claimant declares that they have an untidy tenancy / absent joint tenant i.e. processes followed?
We’ve got a NAWRA committee meeting tomorrow; I’ll raise it with Daphne if she doesn’t spot this.
It’s spotted Dan! I’ll send an email up now :)
It’s spotted Dan! I’ll send an email up now :)
Cheers Daphne.
Their understanding of housing law is patchy; we’ve seen one case where possession proceedings are ongoing and UC insisted on a new tenancy being granted before they’d pay the HCE.
It’s bonkers!
Best practice for the UC agent is given in the DWP Spotlight on Joint and Untidy Tenancies( 2020 edition )
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/698686/response/1672757/attach/html/3/Spotlight%20on%20Joint%20Tenancy%20Costs%20Absent%20Joint%20Tenant%20Untidy%20Tenancy.pdf.html
It’s spotted Dan! I’ll send an email up now :)
Cheers Daphne.
Their understanding of housing law is patchy; we’ve seen one case where possession proceedings are ongoing and UC insisted on a new tenancy being granted before they’d pay the HCE.
It’s bonkers!
Thanks both I know I’ve just emailed you both with details including a copy and paste from a UC Journal - on the case below and shared with CPAG’s EWS. But thought the bare bones below was worth highlighting to a wider audience.
‘To get the housing element she was being told on her journal that she had to change back to her married name for the UC claim and her tenancy agreement. We helped with a MR on the journal and escalated via ACSSL’.
Best practice for the UC agent is given in the DWP Spotlight on Joint and Untidy Tenancies( 2020 edition )
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/698686/response/1672757/attach/html/3/Spotlight%20on%20Joint%20Tenancy%20Costs%20Absent%20Joint%20Tenant%20Untidy%20Tenancy.pdf.html
Thanks UB40!!!
I hope you’ll excuse the following rant, but I would suggest we shouldn’t be referring to “untidy tenancies”. There is nothing untidy about them, and the phrase is pejorative, with a clear implication that the tenant has messed it up - usually by having a relationship breakdown, possibly due to domestic abuse, or perhaps their partner has gone into a care home or prison. In reality the only untidy thing in all this is the way UC deals with these cases. UC invented the term and even they aren’t supposed to be using it any more - they refer now to “absent joint tenants” which I will admit is less catchy, but I think far more accurate and acceptable.
I hope you’ll excuse the following rant, but I would suggest we shouldn’t be referring to “untidy tenancies”. There is nothing untidy about them, and the phrase is pejorative, with a clear implication that the tenant has messed it up - usually by having a relationship breakdown, possibly due to domestic abuse, or perhaps their partner has gone into a care home or prison. In reality the only untidy thing in all this is the way UC deals with these cases. UC invented the term and even they aren’t supposed to be using it any more - they refer now to “absent joint tenants” which I will admit is less catchy, but I think far more accurate and acceptable.
You are so right Timothy. For my part using it as dodgy lingua franca to be understood but also in part because of the dark surreal nature of what is being thrown at our clients, and us with in particular UC administration.
I’m gonna follow your exemplar.
This is such a problematic issue, and I think stems from the very start of claims when UC says you must have an ‘up to date’ tenancy agreement, whatever that is! CPAG have kindly pulled together a lot of the issues into a new JR letter - see last letter at https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/judicial-review/judicial-review-pre-action-letters/housing-costs-uc