BILL ADDITIONAL RESPONSE:

Good morning

Firstly, I should say I was pleased to see Neil Couling following through with his commitment of responding to my original letter. However, I feel obliged to comment on what he's said:

Dear Mr Couling

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my earlier letter but, after waiting a month, I expected something more precise and credible, from you, the Director General.

You claim my views are not representative of what’s happening and are based purely on the dozens of cases presented by my landlord clients. You may have missed it, but the House of Commons library produced a report, only this week, “Housing Costs in Universal Credit” - http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06547#fullreport

Chapter 3 of the report - “Early experiences of implementation” – echoes exactly what I was referring to in paragraphs 2 & 3 of my letter. It confirms, throughout Great Britain, rent arrears are going through the roof and refers specifically to what’s been happening in East Lothian, Great Yarmouth, and the London Borough of Croydon (all “Full Service” areas) mentioned in my letter. It also cites the chaos experienced in East Lothian and the London Borough of Croydon, caused primarily by - the move to Full Service delivery.

You well know, in the case of Croydon, the Council reported a loss of £2.5 M in rental revenue, solely from its temporary accommodation tenants. The report forced DWP Ministers to concede paying “housing costs” to temporary accommodation clients was unworkable, under Universal Credit and promised to revert administration back to Housing Benefit. Whilst the change is warmly welcomed, it should never have happened in the first place.

Why did it happen? DWP chose to ignore the advice of experienced Homeless Accommodation staff from councils, charities etc. experienced in that area.

At paragraph 3.2 of the report it refers to the fact, the Work & Pension Committee decided, in February 2017 to re-launch its inquiry into Universal Credit due to: “compelling evidence of the problems in the rollout of Universal Credit in its recent follow ups”.

So, contrary to your suggestion I was misrepresenting the situation, the facts in the H of C report, suggest my claims were entirely accurate, and expose your criticism as unwarranted.

In relation to my criticism of the APA process, I outlined the concerns of many clients who had experienced significant rental loss, despite having applied for “Landlord Managed Payments” using the designated UC 47 non-secure, supported by evidence of Tier 1.8 criteria. Having heard nothing, they contacted DWP for an update, using the dedicated numbers supplied, by no less than DWP in its APA paraphernalia. Armed with their tenants’ National Insurance number and DOB, they expected to be given an update on the LMP’s progress. Instead, they’ve been consistently told your staff can’t converse with them, without the “explicit consent” of the tenant, who, in some of the cases referred have already misused £8 – 10K of costs designed to reduce or extinguish their rental liability. Landlords simply can’t sustain such levels of loss.

Given the fact, all landlords had complied with the APA process, created by DWP and were looking for simply an update on their application and an assurance the housing element would not continue being paid to tenants who had already accrued 2 months’ rent, I’m at a complete loss to understand why DWP is insistent the claimant’s explicit consent is a critical factor, and without it, feels obliged to continue awarding more housing element payments when, it’s known the offending tenants will simply repeat the misuse?

I should add, I don’t have a monopoly on that view, having spoken to many staff in your “Complaints & Resolutions teams” who are evidencing, daily, public monies being misused on a disgraceful scale, mainly at cost of landlords, many of whom have lenders to pay. The fact only one third of the 530,000 UC claimants have “housing costs” is a blessing at this stage. What concerns landlords most is, as Full-Service rollout continues to expand, so will the numbers of LMP requests; associated delays & complaints; increased rental losses; and an ever increasing drain on the public purse, caused by DWP maladministration; something the Secretary of State has a duty to protect.

What I find most disappointing is the comments in the last paragraph where you confirm you’re no longer willing to honour the commitment made in August 2015 by your then depute, Mike Baker, Operations Director. You recall, I wrote to you, expressing concern about APA administration and the fact the “housing element” was not being suspended, pending a decision on the merits of the LMP application. I cited support for my suggestion by referring to the Judgement of Upper-tier Judge Jacobs (R (H) 2/08) relating to what happens in HB administration. Near the end of the decision the highly regarded Judge makes some entirely sensible recommendations to HB administration staff, which I’ve used to secure compensation for PRS landlords, sometimes after referral to the LGO.

In that case, when a landlord applies for redirection of payment, based on HBR 95 or 96 criteria, they‘re considered “persons affected” attracting rights. As such, when they request redirection under “safeguarding” principles, HB should be suspended, to allow council staff to contact both tenant & landlord to establish the facts, before deciding on who should be the “payee”. The decision rests with the “Decision Maker”. Claimant consent is NOT required but each have a right to appeal if they disagree with the decision. Once made, that decision can only be changed by way of revision/supersession – in other words, a mistake has been discovered or a change in circumstances.

You passed the matter to Mr Baker to respond. He, after taking legal advice, agreed that payment, in the case of UC, would be suspended if the next due payment was 5 or more days away. You implicitly agreed with that view, which I communicated to more than 1000 website members. Other than your opinion, nothing else has changed and the regulation (Regulation 58) permits suspension of the UC award or in part (i.e. the housing element).

As you well know, I’ve been a Universal Credit advocate, mainly because I agree, the current legacy system is broken and needs replaced. My letter to you was a genuine attempt to assist you in your stated aims of listening, learning and improving UC’s delivery. In response, your spirited defence of Universal Credit scheme principles evades the specific concerns raised, representing, in my view, a missed opportunity to genuinely engage with landlords concerns and secure improvements to a scheme which currently is failing them. In some case, especially where Full Services is operating, the extent of losses could bankrupt some, if the situation I’ve described is not addressed ASAP.

You’ll not be surprised to hear that I’ll continue to support my landlord clients by encouraging them to challenge your department’s mishandling of the housing element and, in that regard will continue engaging with your CRT staff.

I would be interested in your views on both Neil's response and Bills follow up.
I have read Neil's response and to me it seems like DWP have failed to address the points raised by Bill and private landlords.

I am the Chair of the Eastern Landlords Association. Great Yarmouth had Universal Credit imposed on it in April 2016. This has proved to be disastrous with increased use of food banks, highest recorded number of homeless and the introduction of a soup kitchen. The council now has arrears totalling £200k from their own tenants and my members are refusing to accommodate tenants who are in the process of making a UC claim.
Claims are taking up to 12 weeks to be paid and the APA process is proving to be useless . The result of which landlords are fed up with increasing arrears which is causing severe hardship for them as well as their tenants.
The response from DWP is just another example of not listening to those on the ground or even accepting the problem exists. Because UC in its full form has only been rolled out in a few areas ,it means this situation has yet to become a public outcry.
Only once this happens can we expect DWP to take remedial action.
If the housing element is paid direct to landlords at least the tenant will retain the roof over their head. How can you find work if you are homeless?
Gt Yarmouth landlords were perfectly happy to take housing benefit tenants but not those on UC.
For those of you where this change has yet to arrive, I can only say watch this space. I have no good news for you unfortunately.

I have two tenants (out of 80) who are on Universal Credit. Neither has paid anything since they were transferred from Housing Benefit. One has a nice new car and is threatening to take me to court for daring to ask for his rent. Both have been given section 8's but with the backlog in the local courts I do not expect possession before Christmas.