Will UC housing element also pay hot water and heating costs?

[Question8383]

Posting for traffic as I posted on the Property/DIY board but didn’t receive any comments. I’d really appreciate advice as I need to make a decision soon!

I’ve put in an offer for a rental property that’s been accepted by the Landlord. The Estate Agents called me today saying that the Landlord has only now revealed that they will be charging £200 a month to cover hot water and heating costs which will be on top of the monthly £1900 PCM rent. This will also be written into the tenancy agreement.

I told the EA to withdraw the offer because £2100 is way above my LHA which is £1944. The EA suggested to put in an offer for £1800 PCM and with the £200 additional charge, that will take the monthly total up to £2000. Now, here’s my question.

As the £200 charge will be written in my tenancy, will this also be covered by the housing element? Will I receive £1944 a month by UC and have to top it up by £56. Or will UC pay £1800 which is the official rent price and I’ll have to cover the £200 by myself? I’m struggling to find an answer on this so I’d be helpful to hear from those in the same situation and are on UC

* no I don’t think someone earning £50k should get £2k a month housing benefit - in that scenario most of the working population of Britain would be receiving more in housing benefit than they pay in tax.*

"Most" of the population wouldn't get that much. It would only be those in very high rent areas that would get anything like that.

I've just run a calculation for someone on a salary of £50k, paying 10% in pension contributions. They would take home £2,952 a month, less if they had student loan repayments. If they had 2 kids, and were living in my part of Sussex, they would be paying around £2k a month to rent a 3-bed property.

There is no way that they'd be able to feed and clothe their family, cover commuting costs and pay all their bills out of the £950 they'd have left after paying rent. Council tax alone would be £150 a month.

They would be entitled to £1059.24 in Universal Credit. Even in central London, where rents are among the very highest in the country, they would get £1767.31.

For them to get £2k a month, their family would have to include someone with significant health issues/disability.

People who bang on about benefits for working people frequently overlook the fact that in most cases it's the rent that puts them above the threshold for benefit entitlement and the landlord is actually the biggest beneficiary. People living in studio flats are paying close to £1k a month here, and we're 50 miles from London.

A programme of massive social housing building would save shedloads in benefit payments and would more than pay for itself in the medium term, and be profitable in the long term.

Exactly. It’s such short term thinking to line the pockets of landlords rather than invest properly in social housing.

UC will only pay the rental element of the tenancy, nothing towards the bills. The tenancy will need to specify what part of the payment is rent and what part is bills.

The RENTAL part of the tenancy will be paid up to the LHA amount (assuming its private not council/HA) so if the rent is £1900 and the bills £200, and the LHA is £1944 you will be paid £1900, they will pay the actual rent OR the LHA (whichever is lower)

UC will ONLY pay the LHA regardless of what it says in your tenancy. I know this for a fact

The fact that rents are so high, and many people's wages are not sufficient to cover these costs, has just created a system where public money is funnelled into the hands of private individuals (landlords). Really it's like a giant scam.

But as many PP have said, it's a problem with the system, not the claimants. It's so odd that some people like @sugarisbad truly believe a life on benefits is something to envy.
Op - are there no other housing options without this complicated bill set up?

You (and other posters) are completely right in terms of the housing issues in the UK. I’m very grateful that I’m able to have my rent paid but it really is like one big scam. I’d much prefer to live in adequate social housing where I could actually pay my rent myself!

The issue I’m finding is that a lot of Landlord don’t want to accept those that receive UC. Or my guarantor needs to earn 78K (they earn 61K), or the Landlord doesn’t want children in the property and would prefer two shares instead. My choices are also limited because of my son’s mobility issues and his accessibility needs. I had a viewing for a really lovely property today but because it’s a conversion flat on the first floor, we can’t take it.

I will keep on looking as I’m not 100% sure that I like the sound of this set up!

@Question8383 good luck, I hope you find something suitable - and somewhere where you only have to pay for what you use!

I’d definitely keep on looking - energy prices have come down, but I know someone with a similar communal heating / hot water set up who was really affected when they were at their highest as they didn’t benefit from the price cap (something about it being classed as commercial rather than residential, I think). I don’t know if that’s been changed now, but something to watch out for, particularly if you’re not on a high income.

"You’ve just compared a single person earning 50K to a single parent who’s a full time carer and has two disabled children. Do you really think we should receive the same level of help, genuinely?

How do you know the single person who works also doesn't have caring responsibilities they need to fit around work?

@CatsLikeBoxes @Putting thank you both. I much rather live somewhere where I pay for my own usage and not a fluctuating number that changes all the time if I’m honest!

Maybe because the poster that used the comparison didn’t mention anything about caring…..

I’m pretty sure you’re the poster who said that I don’t work and I’m getting a handout so how about you take this as my last reply to you🙂

Another thought... Most leasehold properties have a service charge. This is owed by the leaseholder. This cost isn't passed through directly but forms one of the costs that the landlord has.

So, along the same lines, if instead of breaking out the heating infrastructure charge, why can't the landlord include this as part of the overall rental charge- and so therefore it would just read as 'rental charge'? Because, I don't understand why it would be broken out, as there is no choice not to pay it so it's part and parcel of the fabric of the flat.

Maybe it impacts the way they pay their tax on the income from the property

why can't the landlord include this as part of the overall rental charge- and so therefore it would just read as 'rental charge'?

This is a very great question! I’ve seen some properties listed which says, ‘Hot water + heating charges included,’ so it can clearly be done. Most Landlords that have a property which is in a building with communal charges, will usually bump up the monthly rent to cover these charges so I don’t know why this Landlord can’t do the same thing!

I’ve decided to not take this place as I don’t quite like the setup. Well, thank fuck for MN ey, I probably would have just paid it because I want to leave so badly