No HC under UC

Client had joint tenancy with partner. They separated and she left the property, informing the Council. Client left with rent arrears. Council not willing to offer him single tenancy until arrears are cleared. Client been unable to get HC through UC because he has no tenancy. Now got £5000 rent arrears.. Council knew about this when they asked for direct payments from his UC in December 2020. No support, now looking to evict.
Would his previous tenancy (joint) not show UC that he had a tenancy and this is an issue with the Council not willing to change it until he cleared the arrears. Obviously he can’t afford the rent on basic UC.

One of the tenants leaving the property would not, of itself, end the tenancy. It would be possible for either tenant to bring the tenancy to an end by serving notice to quit but if the partner did not give valid notice to quit then the tenancy will not have ended. There are broadly two scenarios:

1) If the partner has not served valid notice to quit then the tenancy continues (irrespective of the fact she has left). UC’s systems would, by default, apportion the rent 50/50 to each partner so the client would get half the housing costs paid - however it is fairly routine at this point to get DWP to change that back to the full rent. This is the scenario which until recently DWP were calling an ‘untidy tenancy’.

2) If the partner has served valid notice to quit then the tenancy would have ended. Your client would no longer have a right to live there as ‘tenant’ or a liability for rent going forwards but as they are still in the property the Council would expect them to make payments on account of their use and occupation of the property. Normally you would expect a use and occupation account to be set up as distinct from the rent account. Whilst it is somewhat murky legally, DWP accept that U&O can be a basis for HCE to be awarded.

So you would expect that one way or another the full HCE would be paid in these circumstances and it seems that something has gone wrong.

I agree with everything Elliot has said, and I would add a point about the threat of eviction. In either of the circumstances Elliot has outlined in this case I would strongly advise your tenant to get specialist housing advice. Hopefully he’s not in a Legal Aid desert area.

If it’s just a case of the other JT leaving then the council needs to do a lot more for their tenant to fulfil the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol which requires them to offer to help him sort out his benefit; it sounds like they’ve done nothing at all.

If the other JT has ended the tenancy then I would argue the council should have referred your client to their Housing Options / Homelessness department, and they should have given him tailored advice and assistance to help him (which would presumably have focussed on helping him get the UC sorted out).

The first thing that has gone wrong is UC - HC should have been paid either way. But that has been compounded by the council failing to help their tenant / former tenant in accordance with the PAP / homelessness law.