High Court rules DWP’s Universal Credit deduction scheme unlawful

If the Housing Element of the UC, which after all is there to pay the rent, went directly to the landlord, none of this woke nonsense would be an issue.

The claimant felt “unempowered” because he had accumulated rent arrears and no-one asked him his opinion when deductions were made to pay back his landlord??? And suppose someone did ask him? What is the likely answer?
Being “empowered” is one thing. Defrauding the system by using your Housing Benefit for personal use is something quite different. It’s called fraud in my book.

Common sense left the UK a decade ago. Not sure where it went.

I suppose Mr Roberts was on legal aid then, nice.Anybody want to take on benefit claimants? I wonder how many landlords could get a similar “unfair” judgement.

Reply to the comment left by Markella Mikkelsen at 28/01/2025 – 09:08
You say it perfectly Markella. Amount of people homeless from UC is shocking.
I have tenants revert it back to theirselves without UC asking me if still in arrears.

so let me get this right.

A tenant who is now at threat of eviction as they have not paid the rent (for which the state has given him the money for, for expressly for this purpose) now has to be ‘consulted’ for their views before the DWP set up a MPTL or deduct rent payments or rent arrears from the claimants UC ‘income’.

“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”

Surely the interests of the UC claimant ARE to ensure the rent is paid to the LL because if it is not there is a breach in the tenancy obligation and eviction will follow?

Another major point – The judge said “where withholding rent may be the only leverage which a tenant has” – so the LEGAL professional is saying it is OK for the tenant to breach a legal contract!!!!! WTAF

I will NOT be looking to take anyone one from this point onwards who relies on UC to fund the rent. The RRB was going to kill this anyway, but looks like it will now be effective immediately for me given this latest ruling!

Just yet another reason for Landlords to sell up and make the housing crisis worse!

Supposed to be helping Tenants but like most of the recent decisions will not help them!

As has been said simple solution pay the Housing element direct then there would be no need for deductions and more Landlords would be inclined to take someone on benefits.

The RRB proposal that any delayed rent payment from UC can not be used in arrears calculations will only make their problem worse!!

Another reason to not take benefits tenants. Not so easy after The renters Rights bill kicks in. Then we will have to find another reason. We pay £250 per property per year for Rent guarantee insurance.. Then we dont care who they give the money to. The referencing enables a better quality of tenant with not much slipping through the cracks.
just saying !

Yet another reason not to take benefit tenants, no matter what the law says about not discriminating.

Reply to the comment left by Brian Strickland at 28/01/2025 – 10:36
I use an agent. Firstly, I doubt that my agent would ever put forward a benefits tenant to me as I doubt that the tenant would pass the affordability checks. Secondly, even if the agent felt that the benefits tenant would pass the affordability checks there are generally plenty of other tenants available that have the ability to pay.

What my agent says is that it’s easy to find tenants. It’s not easy to find the best tenant. I have taken single mums in the past but insisted that they pay me directly. It is government that makes benefit tenants unattractive.

just read the WHOLE judgement in full.
Basically a bloke pi$$ed off that he didn’t get consulted that deductions were being made because he hadn’t paid the rent according tot the LL (Guiness)
and yes..what a surprise the claimant fully funded by Legal Aid. Oh and yes apparently he is/was a lawyer himself! How does that work???
The Facts
38. I turn to the facts. I have alluded to aspects of them already. The Claimant is entitled to
UC. I know a little about him from the papers. He has a law degree. He worked in a police
control room from 2020 to 2023. His witness statement describes his physical and mental
impairments. On 28.12.23 he notified DWP of his new address at Brockhurst Walk where
there would be a weekly rent of £81.05 and a weekly service charge of £25.02. He was
in receipt of the monthly standard allowance of £368.74, his component of £390.06
referable to his disabilities and a housing component of £459.64. His monthly assessment
periods finished on 20th of the month and his monthly payment date was on 27th of the
month. Uncontroversial deductions were already in place of £29 and £18.44 relating to
advance payment of benefit. He received his monthly payments on 27.1.24 and 27.2.24.
39. Then on Saturday 16.3.24 at 09:38, two entries were uploaded by DWP to the Claimant’s
Online Journal. The first was headed “we agreed to pay your rent or service charge arrears
from your universal credit”. There was a notification document describing a
Recoupment-TPD, so as to make a payment to the Interested Party (GPTL) in respect of
the Claimant’s rent arrears, the details of which would follow in due course. The second
entry was headed “changes to your universal credit payment”. There was a notification
document describing a Diversionary-MPTL, so as to make ongoing rent payments direct
to GPTL of the housing component of £459.64. That meant no housing component and
that the Recoupment-TPD would take effect as a deduction to his standard allowance and
disability-related component. The notifications told the Claimant that he could seek a
review and a mandatory reconsideration.
40. On Sunday 17.3.24 at 19:51, the Claimant uploaded a detailed response. It was headed
“application for mandatory reconsideration”. He said “you have agreed (certainly not
with me) to make deductions from my UC to make direct payments to my current
landlord”; “you have done this without any consultation with me”; “It is a basic tenet of
benefit law that any decision affecting a claimant’s benefit must be communicated to him
BEFORE a deduction decision is applied”; that “had [this] been complied with, the DWP
would have discovered that I am in a genuine rent dispute with the landlord (Guinness)”,
of which “Guinness are aware”; that “nothing is owed to Guinness”; that “any application
by them to deduct or have direct payments to any rent account” is “rejected on that basis”;
and finally that he had considered “the Guidance” and “the law”.
41. On Monday 18.3.24 DWP uploaded a message to say they wished to speak to the
Claimant in order to raise a mandatory reconsideration. He replied that day to say he had
no access to a phone and that he had made his request for a mandatory reconsideration in
the journal. On Friday 22.3.24 he uploaded another message: referring to his electronic
request for mandatory reconsideration; giving details of concerns as to data protection
breaches between DWP and GPTL; making reference to the “unlawful” decision to make
deductions; and referring to the “alleged arrears”.
42. The monthly payment date for UC came on Wednesday 27.3.24. The Claimant’s housing
component of £459.64 had been removed. A sum of £44.74 had been deducted towards
rent arrears. Mr Anderson explained that, when account is taken of the uncontroversial
deductions, this was a calculation at the level of the full 20%. These figures were set out
in electronic documents. The Claimant received £666. DWP had removed £504.38. The
Claimant uploaded an entry to the journal at 07:42 saying that this was “unlawful”, had
FORDHAM J
Approved Judgment
Roberts v SSWP
14
been done “despite my instruction not to do so”, and “despite my request for mandatory
reconsideration” and that a letter before claim would follow to GLD, as it did on 28.3.24.
43. The letter before claim said the Claimant “had received no contact whatsoever from the
Secretary of State or [GPTL] that any application had been made, the contents of such
application or the reasons for the making of [it], nor did I receive any other notice of any
kind from Secretary of State that an application had been made and why, [n]or was I
given any opportunity whatsoever to challenge the application process prior to a decision
having been made by the Secretary of State to make any deductions.” He set out his
response, describing the “genuine rent dispute” and that “nothing is owed to Guinness”.
He said that “not only do I feel capable of managing my own Universal Credit (despite
my disabilities) but it is clearly arbitrary and an abuse of process to permit such an
application without first consulting with me (the claimant)” and that DWP “has caused
me unwanted distress on the top of already dire circumstances”. It ended by recording
that “I am in dispute with the landlord”.
44. In the main body of his letter before claim, the Claimant set out these grounds of proposed
challenge:
The Law. I will assert to the High Court the following grounds … Illegality. The decision taken
by the Secretary of State made on the 16th of March 2024 is unlawful as a matter of public law
as the decision maker had failed to provide me with any opportunity to challenge or review the
landlord’s application or its contents, under the scheme, prior to making his or her decision as
per the Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014 …
Illegality. The guidance issued by the Secretary of State is unlawful as nowhere in the guidance
does it offer the claimant (or affected person) the right to request a part in the decision-making
process before a decision is made on deductions under the scheme as per R (Timson) -v- Secretary
of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ 656… The details of the action that the
defendant is expected to take. The defendant is requested to cease forthwith any deduction made
to the Guinness Partnership Limited. The defendant is requested to refund any deduction already
taken from my Universal Credit…
45. Here is what had happened at DWP’s end of things. On Friday 15.3.24, as a Social
Landlord with access to the Portal, GPTL had uploaded a single request asking DWP for
two things: one was a Diversionary-MPTL in respect of ongoing rent; the other was a
Recoupment-TPD in respect of rent arrears. Within the request was this information from
TPL, prompted by the Portal system: (a) that there were rent arrears of £959.88, being
equivalent to 2.7 months; (b) that the reason for the request was history of rent arrears;
(c) that no, the request had not been discussed with the UC-claimant; and (d) that yes,
GPTL was a Social Landlord. A decision-maker within DWP then went through the
practice of generating an on-screen “To-Do” and following the computer prompts. The
decision-maker recorded the following: that yes, a Tier 1 Diversionary-MPTL criterion
was met (ie. 2 months’ rent arrears); that yes, the Diversionary-MPTL was accordingly
agreed; that yes, a request had also been received to recover the arrears (ie. by means of
a Recoupment-TPD); and yes, that the Recoupment-TPD criterion was also met (ie. rent
arrears of two months or more). Following the prompts, the decision-maker set up the
Diversionary-MPTL and the Recoupment- TPD. All of this was recorded by the decisionmaker
on the computer To-Do.
46. Here is what had happened at the Claimant’s end of things. He was in a dispute with
GPTL about the habitability of the property at Brockhurst Walk. He had first raised his
concerns with GPTL on 21.12.23. The dispute had not been resolved and he had sent
GPTL a letter before claim on 28.2.24. On 12.3.24 the dispute had still not been resolved,
FORDHAM J
Approved Judgment
Roberts v SSWP
15
but he and GPTL had mutually agreed that the tenancy in respect of Brockhurst Walk
would formally come to an end on 7.4.24.
47. Having moved out of Brockhurst Walk, the Claimant on 31.3.24 notified DWP, by entry
to the Online Journal, that his address had now changed and he was temporarily
homeless. The computer immediately responded with two notifications to the Online
Journal updating his details and recording that DWP’s action of DAP reg.23 cessation in
respect of the Recoupment-TPD and the Diversionary-MPTL. In the case of the
Recoupment-TPD it was because the statutory precondition of residence at the
accommodation (CAP Regulations Sch 6 §7(4)) was now known to DWP not to be met.
In the case of the Diversionary-MPTL it was because the Claimant had notified moving
out.
48. The other key events were as follows. On 18.4.24 the Claimant commenced county court
proceedings against GPTL in respect of his dispute about habitability and alleged rent
arrears. On 27.4.24 the Claimant received his monthly UC payment. There was now no
Recoupment-TPD deduction. There was also no housing component, because the
Claimant was currently homeless. On 2.5.24 DWP responded to a right of access request,
and provided documents recording the decision-making which had taken place on
16.3.24. By mid-May 2024 the 56 days to which SSWP has referred, for generally dealing
with a request for mandatory reconsideration, had passed. On 24.5.24 the Claimant’s
solicitors wrote a letter before claim. On 7.6.24 DWP messaged on the Online Journal to
say that review and reconsideration were being escalated. On 13.6.24 judicial review
proceedings were commenced. On 18.6.24 DWP messaged on the Online Journal to say
that review and reconsideration were refused. Having then received the judicial review
bundle, on 25.6.24 DWP messaged on the Online Journal to say that the decisions of
16.3.24 were being reversed for official error, and the deductions repaid in full.

Reply to the comment left by Bruce Haagensen at 28/01/2025 – 10:24
or just don’t rent to benefit tenants. That in itself will case the homeless numbers to spiral and the housing lists to just get longer and longer….

All the chaos being state mandated.