Case Study: Preventing Homelessness Through Specialist Benefit Advocacy

Client Situation

David, a disabled father in his fifties, faced potential homelessness when the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) made a life-changing decision about his Universal Credit housing element. In September 2024, the DWP determined that David's tenancy was not "commercial" solely because his landlord was his brother, despite a formal tenancy agreement being in place since 2012.

This decision resulted in:

• Immediate stoppage of David's £1,650 monthly housing element
• A staggering overpayment claim of approximately £73,000
• Formal eviction proceedings being initiated by his landlord
• Risk to the stability of his complex household, including disabled children

The Household

David lives with his wife Sarah and a complex family unit:

• Two teenage sons (aged 13 and 14) who have disabilities and attend a specialist school
• Two young adults (mid-20s) who are part of the household
• David himself has disabilities and receives Personal Independence Payment

The Challenge

When David was referred to our Advice Plus service on 27th January 2025, he was facing a complex web of challenges:

1. Financial crisis: With his housing element stopped and a £73,000 overpayment demand, David couldn't meet his rent obligations, resulting in £4,150 of arrears.

2. Housing insecurity: His landlord had issued a formal breach notice on 10th February 2025, beginning the eviction process.

3. Impact on vulnerable children: David's sons attended a specialist school for pupils with disabilities near their home. Eviction would disrupt their essential educational support.

4. Health implications: As someone with disabilities himself, David was under tremendous stress managing this crisis while also supporting his children with special needs.

5. Bureaucratic barriers: A Mandatory Reconsideration had already been rejected in December 2024, during the holiday period when advice services were limited.

6. Legal complexity: The case involved nuanced interpretation of "commercial" tenancy arrangements when family members are involved.

Our Approach

The Advice Plus service took immediate action:

1. Thorough case analysis: We carefully examined the history of David's housing benefit and Universal Credit, discovering that both had previously accepted the commercial nature of the tenancy from 2012 until this sudden change in 2024.

2. Evidence gathering: We collected crucial documentation including:

   • Original Housing Benefit award letter from 2012
   • Formal tenancy agreement
   • Landlord's breach notice following standard legal procedures
   • History of consistent market-rate rent payments

3. Equality Act considerations: We identified potential indirect discrimination, as the decision disproportionately impacted both David and his disabled children who relied on stability and proximity to specialist support services.

4. Strategic appeal management: We prepared a comprehensive appeal that highlighted both the commercial nature of the tenancy and the urgent risk to a vulnerable household with multiple disabilities.

The Outcome

Within just two months of referral (27th January to 27th March 2025), our advocacy achieved a remarkable result:

1. Decision overturned: The DWP lapsed their decision before the tribunal hearing, fully accepting our arguments regarding the commercial nature of the tenancy.

2. Financial relief: The £73,000 overpayment was canceled, removing an enormous financial burden from David's shoulders.

3. Housing secured: The full housing element of £1,650 was reinstated, preventing eviction proceedings from advancing.

4. Educational stability maintained: David's children could continue attending their specialist school without disruption.

5. Ongoing security: As David receives Personal Independence Payment for his own disability, he remains exempt from the benefit cap and non-dependant deductions, maximizing his financial stability despite having non-dependants in the household.

Impact and Learning

This case demonstrates several important lessons:

1. Expertise matters: Specialist benefit knowledge was essential to challenge the DWP's interpretation of "commercial" arrangements between family members.

2. Timing is crucial: Swift intervention prevented an eviction that would have had devastating consequences for a household with multiple vulnerabilities.

3. Holistic approach: Understanding the interconnection between benefits, housing, disability needs, and educational stability was key to resolving the case.

4. Systems change: This case highlights potential systemic issues in how DWP interprets "commercial" tenancies between family members, potentially affecting many other vulnerable households.

By achieving this positive outcome within two months, our Advice Plus service not only prevented homelessness for one family but demonstrated how effective advocacy can challenge incorrect benefit decisions and protect the most vulnerable in our community.