0:07 AM, 28th January 2025, About 3 days ago 27
Text Size
The High Court has declared the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) method of deducting rent payments from Universal Credit recipients unlawful.
In the case of Roberts v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the court ruled that the DWP’s failure to consult individuals before authorising deductions from their benefits is unfair.
Following a landlord application, the DWP decided to make deductions from Mr Roberts’ Universal Credit in March 2024, for ongoing rent payments and towards rent arrears.
However, Mr Roberts challenged the DWP’s decision to deduct rent payments and arrears from his UC.
While the DWP later acknowledged the deductions were made in error and refunded Mr Roberts, he proceeded with his legal challenge, arguing against the policy that allowed these deductions.
Mr Roberts’ solicitor, Emma Varley from Bindmans, said: “This is an important judgment which confirms what Mr Roberts felt sure of from the outset: that it was unfair of the DWP to make deductions from his benefit without first asking him what he thought about them.
“This judgment should lead to fairer, and better, decision-making by the DWP, which should positively impact the many thousands of people that receive Universal Credit benefit that are at risk of experiencing these types of deductions.”
Following a judicial review, Judge Fordham concluded that the DWP’s deduction process is inherently unfair.
The court highlighted several factors contributing to the unfairness of the DWP’s scheme, including the lack of claimant input on crucial matters like rent disputes, payment history and potential eviction risks.
It also said: “The statutory scheme, the framework of policy guidance and the SSWP’s own practices all reflect a clear recognition that the decisions to make and implement a Diversionary-MPTL and a Recoupment-TPD are designed to protect the interests of the UC-claimant. Not the landlord. Yet, when a landlord makes a request, it is the UC-claimant who is then unnotified and unheard until the decision is made and implemented. Except under the Post-2017 Practice. This is an exclusion, and a disempowerment, of the very person sought to be protected. It is inconsistent with the ethical value, where the person’s rights and interests are supposed to be central.”
The judgement continues: “The decision-making process allows information to be elicited unilaterally from someone – a landlord – with an interest which may not align with the interests of the UC-claimant; giving one side of a story; the protection of whose interests are not the rationale of the payment they will receive. They are likely to be an organisation in an unequal relationship with the UC-claimant. It is quite right to hear from them; but it is unfair to hear exclusively from them. Indeed, in the context of a disrepair dispute, where withholding rent may be the only leverage which a tenant has, SSWP may very well be unwittingly and unknowingly cutting across a protection.”
This ruling now means there will be a change in the DWP’s deduction procedures.
All Universal Credit claimants, including those in social housing, must now have the opportunity to provide input before any deductions are made from their benefits.
This judgment follows a similar Court of Appeal ruling that found the DWP’s ‘Third Party Deductions’ policy for Employment and Support Allowance unlawful for its failure to consult claimants.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson told The Guardian: “We are now carefully considering this judgment.
“Millions of people rely on our welfare system every year and it is vital that it can be accessed by all who need it.”
Previous Article
Paragon unveils new BTL mortgage platform for brokers
K Anon
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:58 AM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
What is earth has gone wrong here?
Surely benefit was first claimed and paid to cover rent?.
The whole argument or point that the claimant was withholding and not paying rent has vanished, it's like it's just a matter of fact ok now.
I've had it happen as have countless others. That's why DWP I presume made direct payments but now that's wrong, tenant should have a say because it's not fair, they didn't get to decide?
And what exactly would their decision be that would make the slightest bit of difference?
Bill irvine
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:20 AM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Hi
The appellant in this case was a tenant of Guinness HA who maintained he didn't have any arrears and was in the process of vacating the property. DWP had automatically implemented deductions via the Social Landlord "portal" which does NOT apply to Private Sector tenancies.
The Court acknowledges that in the case of private tenancies, DWP routinely notifies the tenant of their landlord's Direct Payments application and provides them with 7 days to challenge the application. So, their position remains unaltered.
The key outcome of this appeal is that Social Landlords will no longer enjoy the automatic award of Direct Payments and Third-Party deductions they have experienced for the past 10 years. In contrast, they will have to wait until their tenant has failed to respond to DWP within the specified period or are unable to produce credible evidence to support their position.
In terms of Private Landlords, I maintain the online Direct Payments scheme is both a lottery and another area where DWP acts illegally by not routinely notifying the landlord of the outcome of their application; and by being unwilling to share with PRS landlords their reasons for refusing their application; by allowing tenants to manipulate the scheme all too easily; and by continuing to pay tenants £000's monthly for "housing costs", even though they're aware of the tenant's repeated delinquency of misusing the funds and accruing £000's in rent arrears at the landlord's expense.
In parts of London, where the overall Benefits Cap applies, DWP refuses to pay any of the "housing costs" to the landlord. This form of malpractice could be challenged by a pre-action judicial review application. However, I have yet to find a landlord or a landlord organisation willing to take this step.
Bill
Mike
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:31 AM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 28/01/2025 - 10:54Don't rent to any Lawyer like Tenants or those who know the law too much to exploit DWP and landlords.
Saul Smart
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:56 AM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Bill irvine at 28/01/2025 - 11:20
So people, excuse me for being a little confused here, but referencing 'Bill Irvines' comment, can we establish whether this is applicable to only the social housing providers and not private landlords? A case of Property 118 being again alarmist in their reporting and not having researched properly before releasing articles? I'm not wanting to be critical but we had the same situation of such reporting only a week or so ago and the author had to apologise and acknowledge being corrected by a contributers comment.
GlanACC
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:33 PM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
The should have deducted ALL of his UC until the rent arrears were repaid. Plenty of food banks and do gooder charities to look after him.
I would bring back the workhouse !!
K Anon
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:47 PM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
so this comes about due to non payment of rent .. he must have had quite a tidy sum set aside
Our LA has just introduced charges for waste collection, justified in part due to they are struggling with the burden of social housing costs...
Freda Blogs
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:32 PM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Begs the questions: why a lawyer was on benefits, who should know right from wrong (ie to pay rent) and why the legal aid fund supported the claim and threw taxpayers' money at it.
The lawyers should also know about the Doctrine of Clean Hands - litigants should not go to Court seeking justice if they themselves don't have 'clean hands'). The non payment of rent/benefit fraud seems to have been overlooked. Why?
Mick Roberts
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:56 PM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Bill irvine at 28/01/2025 - 11:20
Thanks for clarifying Bill.
And wow this is shocking:
In parts of London, where the overall Benefits Cap applies, DWP refuses to pay any of the "housing costs" to the landlord.
TheMaluka
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:12 PM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
NEVER take any tenant who is likely to qualify for legal aid.
Beaver
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:13 PM, 28th January 2025, About 2 days ago
Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 28/01/2025 - 12:33
I know it's a joke but I wouldn't bring back the workhouse..... 🙂
I used to find that single mums were good tenants: My agent wouldn't regard them as good tenants now and probably wouldn't recommend them to me.
The fact that they aren't is the fault of government, not my fault or the fault of any other landlord.