Universal Credit housing costs element: social housing and temporary accommodation

Regulations 25 and 26 of the UC regs set out the conditions for the award of the UC housing cost element by reference to schedules 1 and 4.  Part 5 of sch 4 applies to those who rent from social landlords (registered providers and local authorities, other than people in temporary accommodation).  Para 32 of part 5 introduces the power for the secretary of state to refer claims to a rent officer where service charges or rent appear to be greater than it is reaasonable to meet.

Part 4 of sch 4 applies both to those who rent in the private sector and those who are in temporary accommodation.  This appears, from my reading, to apply all of the current restrictions that hit private tenants to people who have been placed in temp accommodation.  The LHA-type ‘cap rent’ under (para 25); four bedroom limit (para 26).  Temp accommodation is defined in para 21. 

The provisions as they apply to tenants in social rented sector and (especially) those in temp accommodation look as though they may seriously compromise security by reducing the level of rent to be met under UC.  Has this been subject of discussion or comment?  I would be interested to know peoples’ views on the implications of these provisions.

There is a long discussion on exactly this point on the HB/CTB board.  You are right: temp acc as defined in para 21 of Sched 4 is treated exactly like private rented accommodation in UC.

Under the current HB arrangements, these cases are either normal rent rebate or normal HA but subsidy payable by DWP to the Council is limited to 90% of the LHA for the property plus £40 in London and £60 elsewhere.  The eligible rent for HB in these cases often looks very high but the subsidy doesn’t cover it all so the LA is already picking up some of the tab for this.

Under UC, the housing element will be the claimant’s personal LHA (which might not be the same as the property LHA) and the government has said that it will make some sort of balancing payment to the LA to make up for the loss of the £40/£60.  The shift from property to personal LHA will mean that even if there is a successful 100% collection rate of the UC housing element, in some cases the LA will get less from the new funding regime than it does now.  This is particularly likely in Scotland where there is a duty to house anyone unintentionally homeless, including young single people whose LHA will be the shared accommodation rate.  I know Scottish LAs are lobbying hard for a guarantee that the combined amount of the claimant’s UC housing element and the government top-up to the LA never comes to less than the Council gets under the current arrangements.

As for mainstream social sector tenancies, the reserve power to refer to the RO is a direct carry-over from HB.  It isnt used all that often at present, ironically it is probably most lilely to affect what are euphemistically described as “affordable” tenancies (which are in fact the opposite of this nuspeak monstrosity).

I think we are discussing this in the Housing Benefit and Council tax section.

The thread heading is:

“Temp accommodation under the Homelessness legislation & UC housing costs”

many thanks for the quick response and helpful signposting. 

- i didn’t intend to start a diversionary thread - i will turn to the HB discussion already in progress. mb