@Degreeincodology
Lol at the sour grapes comment. Claiming benefits when you have no housing costs is morally dubious and everyone here knows it.
But if someone had rent to pay, and their circumstances were otherwise identical to the OP's, they'd get nearly the same amount of UC as the OP
plus all or most of their rent on top. Without taking the rent into account, there would be a difference of around £100 a month because of the higher work allowance that the OP would get because she has no housing costs, but the total would paid out to the family renting would be far higher. But that would be the same if OP was living rent free with her parents.
And people who own a home have higher outgoings. They have to pay insurance on the building in case of flood, fire, or storm damage. That's down to the landlord if they're renting, as are the costs of maintaining the building, servicing the boiler etc. If you need a new boiler, it's a grand, minimum, when you own your house. If you're renting, the landlord pays.
My (pensioner) neighbour just had to fork out £600 for fence repairs after the recent storm. If she hadn't bought her house, it wouldn't have been down to her, and fences aren't generally covered under buildings insurance. A recently retired friend is having to pay over £1,000 to have a sash window replaced, she can't get it done any cheaper because she lives in a conservation area and it has to be the same as the original.
People often regard owning a property as though it's money in the bank, but it isn't that simple. You can't sell it and live in a shoe box, you can't eat it, burn it to keep warm or use it as fuel for your car, and they come with running costs, just like cars do. I can't see why it's "morally dubious" to claim benefits if you're income is low enough for you to need them to live on.
Sure, when you die, you get to leave it to your kids, or you can downsize and free up equity when they leave home, but unless you have less than £16k, you wouldn't get any benefits then anyway.
I own my house, and I can't afford to retire despite being of pension age because there would be so little left after the running costs,.
My MIL, who gets pension credit, has a pension income only about £50 a month less than mine, but she lives in a council house, rent free because she's on pension credit, pays 0 council tax (I'd still have to pay around 60% of mine) and never has to pay for anything to be done on her home. It gets decorated externally every few years, she gets a new boiler every few years whether it needs replacing or not, and has had 2 new kitchens in the last 16 years while mine is 24 years old and decidedly shabby. She gave up work when she had her kids at 21and has never worked since, I'll have been working for 50 years in a few months time. Which of us is the greater burden on the state?