Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

UC want all my money back…

577 replies

MapleHazelLatte · 19/09/2025 08:11

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 ??

OP posts:
Bromptotoo · 19/09/2025 11:39

Muffinmoo · 19/09/2025 11:23

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.

Show quote history

I said I'd understood other Welfare Rights advisers, some of whom have legal qualifications, to say it was nigh on impossible.

Admittedly that's in practical rather than strict legal terms; cost means game not worth candle unless there's a lot more equity then OP thinks.And I suspect there's less rather than more.

Hardhaton1 · 19/09/2025 11:40

Bromptotoo · 19/09/2025 11:39

I said I'd understood other Welfare Rights advisers, some of whom have legal qualifications, to say it was nigh on impossible.

Admittedly that's in practical rather than strict legal terms; cost means game not worth candle unless there's a lot more equity then OP thinks.And I suspect there's less rather than more.

Show quote history

My ex-husband did right in the middle of the pandemic. He made myself and my then 11 year-old homeless we got 14 days notice to leave the house.
The house that I’ve paid the mortgage on for 15 years he was able to sell for twenty two grand more than the outstanding Mortgage which conveniently covered his costs.

Locutus2000 · 19/09/2025 11:40

JustforAlice · 19/09/2025 11:15

It’s not your money.

Of course it is. Would you say someone's wages are the companies money after they are paid out?

Bromptotoo · 19/09/2025 11:41

Winter2020 · 19/09/2025 11:23

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.

Show quote history

Brilliant advice. If there is a joint tenancy it needs severing immediately.

AIUI it just requires you to serve a notice though getting a solicitor to assist might help ensure it's bomb proof.

321user123 · 19/09/2025 11:42

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 19/09/2025 09:51

It sounds like the OP doesn't understand her legal rights and probably doesn't have enough cash to pay a lawyer.

She talks about "being on the mortgage", but doesn't mention the deeds, she hasn't confirmed whether they own as joint tenants or tenants in common, and she seems to have accepted the idea that her ex should get to keep the house and that her entitlement to it is limited to her financial contributions anyway.

In that context, can she really be blamed for not managing to force a sale of the house? It doesn't sound like she has the first clue how to go about that.

The situation has now come to a head because the government is saying that she must repay an amount of Universal Credit that exceeds the amount her ex partner says she is entitled to from the house. Clearly this would be an incredibly unfair outcome and she needs to find a way to fight it.

And as difficult as it will most likely be to force a sale of the house, she's more likely to be able to force her ex to sell a house she owns part of than she is to convince the government to waive a large debt.

The first step is to find out how the house is owned (joint tenants, tenants in common in equal shares, or tenants in common in unequal shares), roughly how much the house is worth, and how much equity is in it.

This means she needs:

  • the legal documents from when they bought the house and ideally copies of any legal advice they were given by their conveyancing solicitor at the time;
  • at least one current valuation by an estate agent; and
  • confirmation of how much is left on the mortgage.

As an owner of the property she is entitled to get all of this information and ex is not entitled to withhold it from her.

Once she has that information she can write back regarding the UC claim and say:

  • I have looked into how the property is owned and estimate that I am entitled to X amount of equity in it (better to err on the side of lowballing this estimate).
  • I have not lived in the property since X date because my ex partner refuses to leave, and I also cannot afford to rent privately which is why I am living with my parents.
  • My understanding based on the advice you gave me on X date is that my equity in the house would not affect my entitlement to claim UC. I now understand this advice was incorrect but I have no practical means of repaying the last three years of UC payments, which I used for the purpose for which they were intended (to live on).
  • I am going to put the wheels in motion to force a sale of the house but I understand that this could take time, given that the co-owner is completely uncooperative. Until the house is sold and I can get my equity out, I have no means to repay this debt.
  • Please advise on the options available to me.

Another thing she could do, which is admittedly an extreme option and does not apply if her ex is in any way abusive, is to simply move back into the house and piss him off so much that he agrees to sell it within a fortnight. Say, "The government are forcing me to repay three years of UC because they say I own this house, and that means I have no choice but to move back into it."

If, on the other hand, her ex is abusive, she should add the following point to her letter:

  • I cannot move back into the house and it is difficult for me to even get near it for the purposes of valuations and estate agent viewings, because I was a victim of domestic abuse by my former partner who still lives in the house.

I understand that allowing people who own properties they do not live in to claim universal credit is a loophole that unscrupulous people would exploit. But at the same time, I think that taking into account someone's joint ownership of a house they cannot live in and cannot get their money out of is also a loophole in the system that leaves people like the OP (mostly women, I reckon) extremely vulnerable.

Show quote history

The only thing I would add here is that you want a RICS valuation, NOT an estate agents.

Especially in a situation like this. You risk getting an over enthusiastic EA round and quoting a figure that is significantly different from what the house is actually worth.

KilkennyCats · 19/09/2025 11:42

Locutus2000 · 19/09/2025 11:40

Of course it is. Would you say someone's wages are the companies money after they are paid out?

Show quote history

If they were paid in error, or under false pretences, then yes.
This is hardly a question of finders keepers!

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 19/09/2025 11:43

DurinsBane · 19/09/2025 11:33

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)

Show quote history

Being a sahm is irrelevant, moving out 3 years ago is irrelevant. The op is a joint owner of this property and there is no mechanism for the ex to pay less than the % of equity that the op owns. Oddly enough not being married means he can't declare she doesn't need it and he does. This is a straight you own this amount, he owns that.

Every day that the house price increases or the mortgage gets reduced he owes her the equivalent %. The sooner he sorts this the better it is for him.

I suspect he thinks he can just pull the wool over the ops eyes and pay her off at a fraction of what he should. The op becoming more aware of the true situation might make him sort it.

Hardhaton1 · 19/09/2025 11:48

321user123 · 19/09/2025 11:42

The only thing I would add here is that you want a RICS valuation, NOT an estate agents.

Especially in a situation like this. You risk getting an over enthusiastic EA round and quoting a figure that is significantly different from what the house is actually worth.

Show quote history

100% agree this also prevents the EX under selling it as happened with myself

Bromptotoo · 19/09/2025 11:50

Burningbud1981 · 19/09/2025 11:37

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

Show quote history

We don't even know if her share of the market value after sale cost is more than £16k.

We know she should have acted when the six months ended and she didn't.

The question, on which OP needs advice/assistance, is whether the overpayment decision can be unravelled.

If it cannot then DWP debt management will need to get involved.

In the meantime OP needs advice on (a) market value today and (b) steps she can take to realise her share and the likely cost of doing so.

She can then reapply for UC either showing her share of equity to be low enough not to affect UC or to use the 'taking steps' disregard in Sch 10 para 6.

JustforAlice · 19/09/2025 11:51

Locutus2000 · 19/09/2025 11:40

Of course it is. Would you say someone's wages are the companies money after they are paid out?

Show quote history

Yes if they were paid in error or as a result of false information. OP was not entitled to the money and will have to pay it back.

Ionlymakejokestodistractmyself · 19/09/2025 11:56

Roobarbtwo · 19/09/2025 11:25

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

Show quote history

My friend has been getting UC while the money is tied up in a house her ex lives in

Don't think it's 10k a year but it's hundreds a month

Marshmallow4545 · 19/09/2025 11:57

Locutus2000 · 19/09/2025 11:40

Of course it is. Would you say someone's wages are the companies money after they are paid out?

Show quote history

This is such a crazy comparison!

OP hasn't earned the UC money like she has earned her wage. Instead she has applied to the State for benefits and obviously has filled in the application in way that the State (wrongly!) believed she was entitled to £30k in benefits (i.e. tax payers money). This money was fundamentally obtained under false pretences, even if OP claims ignorance. This is fraud, she was never entitled to the money it was therefore never hers and now the DWP want to claw back the money that she never should have been paid in the first place.

I think we need to put this into context. OP has been paid £30K over three years in benefits on top of her wage whilst living with her parents. I presume she will split utility bills, council tax with her parents and doesn't pay them a huge amount of rent. She is now contesting that she didn't have any money to even start court proceedings to force the ex to sell the house and is claiming complete ignorance even though all this information is readily available online.

Roobarbtwo · 19/09/2025 12:01

If she part owns the property then she's in the same situation as the OP. A six month disregard then the property is expected to be sold.

9ctnothing · 19/09/2025 12:03

Locutus2000 · 19/09/2025 11:40

Of course it is. Would you say someone's wages are the companies money after they are paid out?

Show quote history

I think in this case it is like you received wages for hours you did not work, you have to give it back.

HappyHedgehog247 · 19/09/2025 12:04

You've got to get the house sold. A court application is worth it and only £100-£200. You can file yourself.
citizens advice can help in the meantime.

Olivene · 19/09/2025 12:06

Onmytod24 · 19/09/2025 11:30

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.

You're not a judge and she's not "pleading" anything, self-important much?

WimbyAce · 19/09/2025 12:06

Why have you not told him to buy you out before now? You have capital in that house and he is just sat on it.

Bromptotoo · 19/09/2025 12:07

JustforAlice · 19/09/2025 11:51

Yes if they were paid in error or as a result of false information. OP was not entitled to the money and will have to pay it back.

Show quote history

FFS there was no 'false' information.

OP screwed up but DWP were actively complicit as they paid for three years while their records showed OP owned the property with no disregard sought/applied.

jordanallen139 · 19/09/2025 12:07

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

butterfly0404 · 19/09/2025 12:10

WimbyAce · 19/09/2025 12:06

Why have you not told him to buy you out before now? You have capital in that house and he is just sat on it.

She has, he hasn't done so...if he contintues to obsfucate the only person who can make him is a Judge and that means an application to court, which will take months, if not years.

Blushingm · 19/09/2025 12:10

Who has been paying the mortgage the last 3 years?

Laiste · 19/09/2025 12:11
  1. Get a free initial appt. with a family solicitor with q's written down ready. Talk fast the time flies.
  2. Get your maintainance claim in. You can do this online without help.
  3. Get a valuation of the house. (not estate agent)
  4. get full time work and use your free childcare hours.
  5. tell your x you are claiming maintenance.
  6. tell your x you are starting proceedings to force a sale.
  7. contact your mortgage company to ask what percentage of the house is yours.

For your kids sake get off your arse and do what needs doing. 3 years of wafting about 'not knowing anything' has got you where you are. You've had 3 years of him sitting pretty in the house avoiding paying child maintenance while you live with your parents. Get angry. Educate yourself and get what you and your kids are owed.

CoralOP · 19/09/2025 12:11

Olivene · 19/09/2025 12:06

You're not a judge and she's not "pleading" anything, self-important much?

Show quote history

Pleading ignorance is a general term used when someone says they do not understanding a situation and that's why they did it. PP was simply saying it isn't relevant in law.
She wasn't saying that OP was "pleading"(to us).

Ophy83 · 19/09/2025 12:11

Work out his occupation value of the house - if it is more than mortgage payments he may owe you something for that. But you need proper advice from someone who can see the documents.

Roobarbtwo · 19/09/2025 12:12

Bromptotoo · 19/09/2025 12:07

FFS there was no 'false' information.

OP screwed up but DWP were actively complicit as they paid for three years while their records showed OP owned the property with no disregard sought/applied.

Show quote history

I'm not sure complicit is the right term. It's up to the OP to report a change of circumstances and keep the dwp updated.