advertisement


Universal credit question

tiggers

pfm Member
I am completely without knowledge when it comes to the details of UC so I was wondering if someone here might know the answer to this.

Daughter of a friend lost her job. She is looking for work, but has signed on to UC. She lives on her own in a one bedroom house for which the rent is £480 per month. She has been told she will only get £280 a month towards her rent as she could be in a HMO at that rent. Trouble is she has only just signed a new lease so couldn't leave to live in a HMO if she wanted to. Anyway why should she?

My question is... is this right? If not how does she challenge it?

TIA.
 
My understanding is that rent is paid at what the local dole office regards as a normal/competetive/appropriate local rate, but for your current residence, not on some arbitary other dwelling.

Citizens' Advice - you'll not get better advice, and it is free.

I have not read this, but the title looks promising and it is recent - How much rent does Universal Credit cover? Rules on housing costs explained - Birmingham Live (birminghammail.co.uk)

I've just skim read it and this is the bit that matters, I suspect - harsh and bloody unfair -

"It means that if you pay rent to a private landlord and are under 35, single, not disabled and have no children, your Universal Credit housing costs will be no higher than if you were renting a single room in a shared house."
 
Sadly, housing benefit is restricted to shared house rates (HMO's) for anyone under 35.

She will only get the allowance for whatever the local councils declared shared room rate is.

If she is over 35, she would get one bedroom flat rate.

If she has any health conditions, long term, or children, etc it may help to get them to reconsider and get her on the one bedroom rate, but you'll need to put together something severe to get them to shift.
 
My understanding is that rent is paid at what the local dole office regards as a normal/competetive/appropriate local rate, but for your current residence, not on some arbitary other dwelling.

Citizens' Advice - you'll not get better advice, and it is free.

I have not read this, but the title looks promising and it is recent - How much rent does Universal Credit cover? Rules on housing costs explained - Birmingham Live (birminghammail.co.uk)

I've just skim read it and this is the bit that matters, I suspect - harsh and bloody unfair -

"It means that if you pay rent to a private landlord and are under 35, single, not disabled and have no children, your Universal Credit housing costs will be no higher than if you were renting a single room in a shared house."

Cheers Vinny, yep that is exactly her situation. It looks like she might have a new job now so no probs, but she was worried if it went on for a few months how she would pay. Doesn't seem fair to me, but no surprise there.
 
Sadly, housing benefit is restricted to shared house rates (HMO's) for anyone under 35.

She will only get the allowance for whatever the local councils declared shared room rate is.

If she is over 35, she would get one bedroom flat rate.

If she has any health conditions, long term, or children, etc it may help to get them to reconsider and get her on the one bedroom rate, but you'll need to put together something severe to get them to shift.

Cheers for the response, much appreciated and that explains it.
 
She has been told she will only get £280 a month towards her rent as she could be in a HMO at that rent.

That is awful. Yet another example of how much worse things are now even when compared to the height of Thatcher’s mass unemployment/war on the north. I’d probably have gone properly clinically nuts if I was forced to share a space with random strangers.
 
That is awful. Yet another example of how much worse things are now even when compared to the height of Thatcher’s mass unemployment/war on the north. I’d probably have gone properly clinically nuts if I was forced to share a space with random strangers.

Yep, me too. It's not right.... she's had a job (albeit relatively low paid) most of her adult life and this is the first time she's had to turn to UC. She's 33. So that's 15 years of work behind her and then gets told that she basically she has to move out if she can't find the extra funds.
 
Last edited:
Fortunately at the time of Thatchers war on the North I was at home, so my Giro was just pocket money (My parents fed me and kept a roof over my head, which was nice).

Stories like this are somewhat depressing, and I hope she gets a new job soon, as Tony ses, who the hell would want to live in a house of random strangers, especially a woman.

While I envy youths ability to get out of a chair without breaking wind and dance till dawn I'm so glad I'm not starting out again..........I'll take the aches and pains and the house thank you :)

Anyways, best of luck to her and may she get turned round soon.

S
 
It's designed to be cruel.

It is designed to stop the tax-payer being ripped off by anyone, including chancer landlords.
Having not the first clue about renting, I have no idea if that is a realistic rent in Brum, or not, but somebody in the DWP thinks that it is. Presumably not too far off as it is more than the person in the OP is actually paying, although we don't know where she is.
 
A “realistic rent” is not part of the equation.

UC sets a limit on the amount of benefits a household is entitled to. UC can be made up from various sources (eg; job seekers allowance, housing benefit, sickness or disability related benefits).

local housing allowance (LHA) is in effect the maximum amount of housing benefit a person renting in the private sector is entitled to, as part of their wider UC entitlement. LHA is set at the 30th percentile of market rents charged within a “Broad Rental Market Area” (BRMA). BRMAs are determined by the rent officer for that local authority.

For me there are 4 main problems with the approach from a housing perspective.
(1) it is inflexible and makes a person’s previously affordable home instantly potentially unaffordable if they lose their job and suddenly need to rely upon the state for assistance.
(2) the idea that under35s in rented accommodation should be sharing facilities. It might be a necessity in the totally knackered housing market in the SE but it shouldn’t be expected where there is less pressure on housing supply.
(3) if you have a large household with complex needs in an expensive area, and if your total benefits entitlement exceeds the UC limit, it is your LHA which is cut. This basically means you need to internally cross-subsidise your rent payments from other benefits which may be illness or disability related.
(4) by virtue of the fact it is all paid retrospectively (when landlords more often than not want payments in advance), it places huge pressure on people in difficult circumstances.
 
It is designed to stop the tax-payer being ripped off by anyone, including chancer landlords.
Having not the first clue about renting, I have no idea if that is a realistic rent in Brum, or not, but somebody in the DWP thinks that it is. Presumably not too far off as it is more than the person in the OP is actually paying, although we don't know where she is.

Cambridgeshire near Peterborough. Her rent is actually quote low for a one bedroom self contained property.
 
It is designed to stop the tax-payer being ripped off by anyone, including chancer landlords.
Having not the first clue about renting, I have no idea if that is a realistic rent in Brum, or not, but somebody in the DWP thinks that it is. Presumably not too far off as it is more than the person in the OP is actually paying, although we don't know where she is.
No it's designed to be cruel, the payment delay, the sanctions policy the in built indebtedness, if you are already paying a rent in the place you are living and find yourself out of work your rent should be covered or do you advocate folk lose their home on top of losing their job? FFS .
 
Having worked in private housing and then council housing associations I have watched the benefit system dismantled from the inside.
The only people who prosper are the corrupt landlords as their rent is guaranteed, the real waste is in the system of bedsit’s and b&b used for the young and vulnerable forced into these hovels by social services who waste large budgets on temporary fixes. 20 years back they could charge hundreds per week for a single room with shared toilet no kitchen and given single sandwich for the hot meal that council paid £10 a day.
If I remember correctly 60% of all housing benefit goes to those in work, I presume they deserved whatever came their way, feckless lot.
I think fear has replaced anger!
 
There is massive anger in our area as hmo,s spring up everywhere with rip off landlords not giving services they should
 
There is massive anger in our area as hmo,s spring up everywhere with rip off landlords not giving services they should

I hope this eventually translates into a more politically engaged population but I fear it won’t. The benefits system is seriously twisted out of shape but the real cause of much of this pain is a combination of low wages and absurdly high housing costs.
 
has there been a riot, a people's uprising?
there have been demonstrations and huge amount of anger on Facebook. Some have had their licenses revoked. They have to have a license but some do it illegally. The house I renovated 2 years ago is now an illegal hmo, 2 doors away many folks live in one house (4 bed) and they had 4 longwheelbase vans parked on street causing problems.
 


advertisement


Back
Top