Claim invalidated because didn’t report rent increase on

Jocandoall

Friend has had a situation arise which I’d appreciate any advice on.

They had a rent increase in August 2025, they rent from a private landlord. They didn’t report the rent increase due to genuinely not knowing they needed to as their rent is above LHA allowance anyway so wouldn’t change the claim award

They reported the increase during their UC annual review in Jan, thinking that was the correct process. UC decision makers have decided that none of the housing costs from August to Jan were actually valid due to the fact they had not reported the increase. This has generated an overpayment over UC from July to Jan due to the housing element being removed. They’re being told it’s an overpayment of over 7k (which is actually more than they received in UC payments from July to Jan so it doesn’t actually add up / make sense anyway - extra confusion around that)

They submitted a MR and decision maker refused to overturn it, standing by the conclusion that they should have reported rent increase and were not entitled to any of the housing element they received since August 25

Is that correct to say they owe money back based on not reporting a rent increase? If they go down first tier tribunal route, is it likely to get overturned? Any advice or experiences very welcome.

Rachel_Scope

Hi @Jocandoall and welcome to the community. I've had a look online and all I can find is situations referencing an overpayment if UC aren't made aware of any changes, which would result in having to pay the amount back. I'm confused why they would be asking for more than your friend actually received. Was this explained in the MR?

Here's some information from Citizens Advice that explains why a claim may be stopped but I'm not sure it will give any more insight: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/problems-with-your-payment/if-your-payment-is-stopped-or-reduced/ .

I haven't come across this before but hopefully one of our members will know more about it.

OverlyAnxious

This is 'technically' correct. They accepted a commitment to update UC of any changes when starting the claim, and failed to do so in this case. It doesn't matter that the LHA was lower, what matters is that the rent amount on the UC statements is correct and verified by a rental agreement before the LHA amount is checked against it.

However, this is clearly just a silly mistake, and as they did not get any more money then they were entitled to then I can't see a tribunal agreeing with the DWP in this case. I would definitely recommend taking it to tribunal.

Does their full previous rent add up to the £7k before the LHA reduces it? That's the sort of error I'd expect the UC staff to make.