UC want all my money back…

[MapleHazelLatte]

I applied for UC when I separated from DC’s father 3 years ago. I have since been living with my parents and he stayed in the house we bought together. I’ve been asking him to take my name of the mortgage to give me my share but he just has been dragging his heels about it. I applied for UC when we split up.

i then got a notification to say I was having a review phone call. Apparently someone had accused me of still being with DC’s father. I had to send all my bank statements for the last 3 years and fill out forms regarding the house. Originally I vaguely remember they did say they would disregard the house for 6 months then I heard no more.

a couple of months later I was told I had been overpaid but it was only slightly and a manageable amount to pay back.

I’ve not got another letter saying I shouldn’t have got UC since 2022 and they want ALL the money back other than the first 6 months. It’s “disallowed” I’ve worked this out to be around £30k. I have no idea what I’m going to do. Anyone else been in this situation ??

You really need to stop being such a push over. You and your children deserve better. Look at making a claim to cms so you at least get maintenance. Maintenance won't affect your UC.

You need also to go to CMS urgently and set in place application to get your ex to pay child support. He SHOULD have been paying this for 3 years, not just as and when you need clothes for the kids or whatever. This is daft on your part - they're HIS children, why have you pet him get away with not paying towards their upkeep?

She has an asset but if she'd acted during the initial six months, or immediately at the end of it, the 'taking steps' disregard at para 6 of Sch 10 in the UC Regs would have been applied.

Based on what's been said about the equity in the house is not massive and the ex is unwilling to buy her out or do their but to get it sold. On that basis it's quite likely OP would have been told the cost of whatever legal remedies might be available would render them unviable. It's also possible a proper market valuation for a property in these circs would place a nugatory value on @MapleHazelLatte's share of the equity.

Beyond my area of expertise but I'm sure I've been told in the past that getting a court to order sale where you were not married is nigh in impossible which is another string to the OP's bow.

She owe the whole amount back because she hasn’t proved her eligibility to UC. If the equity in the house is more than 16k there is no entitlement to UC

Universal credit claim review team are so corrupt....they will make you jump through so many hoops, answer constant questions, pester you to high hell for information yet when you have a question for them or query their decisions, they totally ignore you or give vague answers.

We had to provide 6 years of statements for ALL accounts, continuously over the period of a year, were completely honest about everything, yet they miscalculated it all, accused us of having money we didn't and have made massive errors which have caused us alot of stress and finanical loss, so i am now making a complaint against them.

My local job centre said they are the 'God's of UC' asin they make the decisions and everyone else has to go with it without good justification.So I think they play games with people knowing they will likely get away with it.

I feel for you as unless you could force your ex to sell and get your money out of the house (is that even possible?) at which point fair enough you shouldn't be entitled to UC if its sitting there accessible, what are you supposed to live off for the time being?!

Well it is relevant in the sense that she has no actual access to the money in order to pay what she owes.

You can't force someone to do something which is impossible.

The comparison to owning stocks and shares is rather silly because people who own stocks and shares can sell them much more easily than you can sell a house currently occupied by a co-owner who doesn't want to sell.

I’m so sorry you’re dealing with this.
I had a tax credit over payment, despite me telling them the circumstances the way it was set up (using last years figures and a subsequent change of rules) meant I received an over payment. the people I spoke with were utterly awful it was utterly atrocious the way they dealt with it.
the debt got passed to their debt management team as I couldn’t pay a lot at a time (tiny wage hence the need for tax credit!). I was paying something like £11 a month. I had to prove all my outgoings and my incomings. It hit hard as I’d gone from receiving tax credits to then being in minus figures.

back to you. Was your ex abusive, coercive? Or controlling (including financial)? A fairly new ruling states if he was abusive they realise you cannot stay in the shared home so disregard this.

another thought I’ve had, and you’d need a good solicitor for this one. If he’s depriving you of the benefit of your asset (living there or the funds from it) I’m wondering if you have a case for this to be a shared debt, so it just comes out the equity.

Which is basically the same thing - I perhaps didn't explain it clearly.
UC assume that the personal amount is enough to pay her parents for "lodging", i.e. it includes an amount for utility bills (which she would have to pay if she was actually renting her own place), and she doesn't get a housing element for "rent", whether or not she is actually paying her parents.

If you own the house 50:50 then your share of it's sale will be 50% of what's left after the selling costs and repaying any mortgage. The solicitor should distribute the monies 50% each. It's not up to your ex to decide what you can have and it makes no difference that you were a stay at home mum.

If you own the house as joint tenants then if you die your half immediately passes to your ex (the joint tenant) and vice versa. You probably want to get that changed to tenants in common so if you die your daughter can inherit your half of the house instead. Look into how to do this but I believe it involves serving a notice on your ex and getting things updated at the land registry.

She doesn't know how much equity she has, and finding out needs to be her starting point.

That’s rubbish, of course you can force a sale to realise your interest in a property, married or not. It might take time but it’s not ‘impossible’.

and yes I am a lawyer.

Of course you can force a co owner to sell. There is a legal process for it.

I told them from the start my name was on a house, I filled out loads of details about it

Because they aren't entitled to UC if they have a share of a property that is worth 16k or over. At 16k entitlement to UC stops. Between 6k and 16k there is some entitlement

Well one thing you can do starting today is to put in a claim for the child maintenance he should be paying.

As others have said, if you own it 50:50 then you are entitled to half the proceeds of sale, not whatever he claims you're entitled to. He needs to either pay you half the equity in the house at full market rate to buy you out (usually you would get three estate agent valuations and take an average to determine what the house is worth), or he needs to agree to put it up for sale so you can get your share out.

What he can't do is just squat in the house indefinitely and deprive you of what is rightfully yours.

I’m pretty sure I’m also on the deeds and the house is 50/50 but he just says my share is around 16k.

You need to know for sure.

As I said:

1. don't believe what he says
2. who has paid the mortgage is irrelevant
3. get a copy of the deeds, an up to date mortgage statement, and a house valuation - a website will give you an approximate one based on the postcode
4. get a solicitor if he refuses to sell or buy you out - see if your parents' insurance has legal cover

Yes but once your initial 6 months disregard was up you should have asked for a further disregard or taken steps to sell. You’ve done neither. From what I’ve read you haven’t lived in the house for 3 years? That’s a long time to get something sorted. Obviously correct me if I’m wrong.

if this is is the case you won’t get far fighting it. You can ask for an MR but if the above is correct you won’t be successful

You’re pleading ignorance but it doesn’t wash. you had assets which would exclude you from universal credit and you knew that. getting money by false pretences - isn’t that a criminal offence.

Yes and you said you vaguely remember about the 6 month rule by signing the UC commitment you signed to say you understood their rule. At the end of those 6 months did you report to UC that you still had the house? The point is the rule is that you are allowed 6 months but when this ended you have taken no steps to sort out the ownership with your ex. If you are naive about your legal rights then obviously a solicitor will be able to advise about removing yourself from the house, whilst you still have these ties it is an messy financial situation with the ex. You couldn’t take the mortgage on so he should of and paid you any equity why have you been passive about sorting it out for the last 3 years. If anything now you need to take steps to sort this with the ex and DWP.

I'm so sorry this has happened to you.

Perhaps you could force the sale anyway, because even if you get no money from it, you would at least be free to claim UC.
If you then had to pay costs, offer a pittance a week, or go bankrupt? It might not happen, he could get the costs. It would be a risk worth taking to get free.

You did contribute to the mortgage those 9 years you were a SAHM. You looked after yours and his kids so he was able to go to work. If you are on the deeds as 50/50, you are entitled to 50% of the profit. Possibly a little less as you haven’t been there 3 years, but I don’t know how that works. But you are entitled to equity gained in the time you were there and a SAHM mum (as long as your name is on the deeds as you think)

Which was what my next post said.

You can't force someone to do something which is impossible.

If you think that you clearly don't understand the benefits rules. They cannot force her to pay money she does not have - but they can deduct it from benefits going forward, even throughout her statutory pension if necessary, and leave her destitute. If she is already mainly living on benefits then depending on where you argue the point, she is already not far off that mark anyway. If she works, they will attach earnings as well.

This is not a "bury your head in the sand" moment - she has got into this state by doing exactly that, and not understanding the law, her rights or the benefit rules is no protection as adults are expected to manage their lives and make themselves informed.

Sifting through this thread she needs a "tick box" list - she needs to get advice on forcing the sale of the house if he will not buy her out at a market rate, she needs to be claiming childcare support, she needs to look at what she can do to maximise her income, etc etc. And work through it until it has all been addressed.

Have you actually read the whole thread?

First and foremost a proper market valuation of the house with an occupier who cannot be shifted will be way less than with vacant possession. If, even theoretically, there is sufficient equity to affect payment (more than £6k) or the £16k limit the cost/complexity of even trying that will significantly exceed the available equity. Those of us involved in Welfare Rights see that all the time.

People with intimate knowledge of UC have advised OP that there are disregards that could easily have been applied. See UC Regs 2013 Schedule 10 para 6.

Did UC contact OP when the initial 6 months (para 5(a) of above Regs) expired or at any other time in the succeeding three years for an update on what was happening with the property declared on her claim. I'd wager that they didn't and it only came to light on a review. There's at least anecdotal evidence that DWP are pursuing reviews more often and more thoroughly recently, maybe reintroducing stuff that fell by the wayside during the pandemic.

I know all this which is why I have said she didn’t prove her eligibility to UC. From what I have read she told Uc initially so would have got the 6 month disregard but didn’t update UC after. So I’m not sure how my comment is wrong. How is she entitled to UC with an asset that hasn’t been disregarded that is worth more than 16k