Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC case with 4 claims ...
I have a case where has had to make fourclaims and had no money for several months:
First claim made online - DWP say no record of it
Second claim made 2 weeks later - DWP have done nothing this claim because he didn’t attend Jobcentre interview, which he says he received no notification of (but have subsequently at a later date ‘closed it’ without deciding it)
Third claim made online 3 weeks later - DWP have no record of it
Fourth claim made a month after that - Now in pay
So, I believe that DWP should have made a decision on the second claim, which could have considered backdating to the first. Probably a decision of non-entitlement for failure to ‘accept’ claimant commitment. Which would have given him appeal rights, and enabled a decision maker to consider whether the interview could just have been rescheduled at the point where he makes contact within 3 weeks to query progress.
I was told by UC helpline that where interview not attended a claim is not decided it is simply not actioned and there is not only no reminder contact about the need to attend an interview, there simply is effectively no claim. It would prevent a new claim being made unless someone goes into the system and ‘closes’ it. Which is possibly what has happened to the third claim just not getting logged anywhere.
Any other views on the legal position?
Might this case give some helpful guidance for possible challenge - different benefit obviously, so you’d need to read across the respective regulations.
Thanks Paul this looks helpful
Not a full answer, but some thoughts on this .. for UC and JSA, it is normally a basic condition of entitlement that you have accepted a claimant commitment/JSAg.
For JSA, CPAG p1036 says: “Until you have agreed the contents of your claimant commitment with your [EO], your claim for JSA is not passed to a decision maker to decide whether you are entitled to JSA.” I understand this to be the common practice, i.e. JCP say there is no claim to decide until you enter into the JSAgreement.
For UC however, in the ADM at J1011, example 3, “Michelle” attends, but refuses to sign her commitment:
“The DM decides that in respect of the claim for UC made on 20.5.13, Michelle is not entitled. This is because a claimant commitment has not been accepted.”
So are JSA and UC treated differently? Is Michelle’s UC decision appealable?
It would prevent a new claim being made unless someone goes into the system and ‘closes’ it. Which is possibly what has happened to the third claim just not getting logged anywhere
Getting DWP to accept that this applies here will be difficult, but cause for backdating can include “the claimant was unable to make a claim electronically because the official computer system was inoperative”.
By the way, where a claimant rejects a commitment, then ADM J1010 says that they “must be offered a cooling off period so that they can reconsider. The cooling off period should be a maximum of seven calendar days”. It might be argued that failing to attend should have invoked this cooling-off offer, rather than simply “closing the claim”..?
lt looks like claims are being “lost across the UK - ” IT glitches mean that new claims are simply vanishing, leaving claimants without any of the cash to which they are entitled for three months, according to Frank Field, the chairman of the Work and Pensions select committee”
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/benefit-blunders-hitting-constituents-minister-charge/
Oh, it’s alright Sarah, in the article that Maggie linked to, a DWP spokesperson said “Contrary to the anecdotal claims in the letter, the Universal Credit computer system is working well, with no reported problems.”
Your client must have imagined his 4 separate claims or something….
Thanks for your reply Jon, sorry for delay in responding. I too have been comparing JSA with UC. In JSA there is a requirement to attend an interview but in UC only to accept the claimant commitment. I will be chasing up the MR and b/d request this week and will update.
As for the non existent computer problems . . . One tenant made 5 claims online none of which registered with DWP. The last one she made while live on UC tel helpline, and was told it was not registering at DWP end. The helpline took a tel claim and advised her to request b/d. She has done so herself and is going to keep me informed. Will be interesting to see what DWP do as even where criteria for b/d met it is restricted to one month.
They are going to be asked to consider comp payments in a few cases now.
Other cases include two people found fit for work, and then passed between JSA and ESA without being paid either for a month in one case and 6 weeks in the other, before ending up claiming UC.
We have only looked at 42 cases so far of the 200 tenants on UC and this is the type of thing. Shall we extrapolate that to the 250,000 on UC.?
Oh, it’s alright Sarah, in the article that Maggie linked to, a DWP spokesperson said “Contrary to the anecdotal claims in the letter, the Universal Credit computer system is working well, with no reported problems.”
Your client must have imagined his 4 separate claims or something….
We are getting cases of lost claims and other’system’ faults too. But, as Paul says, we must be imagining it.
Or is it that the level of denial and ‘optimism bias’ in DWP is just as bad now as when that other bloke (wossisname) was in charge?
“The system is rejecting claims”. “The system is working well as designed”.
Where’s the contradiction?
An update on my case to encourage others with similar issues.
MR has been successful as far as the 2nd claim goes, on the grounds that the decision to terminate that claim was not notified to claimant and so is invalid, and therefore that claim still exists. My client has gained about 7 weeks money. They maintain there is no record of the initial claim that ‘disappeared’.
Is anyone else coming across and doing anything about / campaigning on the issue of the UC claims that are disappearing into cyberspace?
I have been told by UC helpline staff member that the reason they do not ‘register’ on the system is that a legacy benefit claim has not been ‘closed down properly on the system’ even if the claim has been ended and a decision issued.
I have a backdating request refused because the claimant can provide no evidence of the 5 previous claims. Her evidence is the fact that she wrote down the dates of these claims and there is no other evidence as the system offers no claim reference or confirmation email. All anyone could do would be to take a screen shot photo showing the date. Which would take tremendous foresight if you had made the claims in the expectation that if a Govt computer system told you your claim said it had been submitted, then it had been.
I am going to contact the MP and refer to Frank Field’s letter cited above, and also contact Nat Housing Fed as this is also a rent arrears issue.
My second case of the disappearing / non-existent UC claims has now had successful backdating. Initially one month agreed in line with the Regs on backdating. But now DWP have decided the date of claim can be ‘treated as’ the earlier date of the claimant’s first attempted claim which extends back a further 2 weeks.
DWP’s position at MR stage was that there was no claim as there was no evidence of the claim - ie it did not exist on their system. I argued that her evidence that she did in fact claim should be accepted as evidence, and I quoted Frank Field and other places the issue has been raised in the public arena, and the fact that DWP have admitted that claims in the live service will not register if a legacy benefit claim has not been closed down. I also challenged them to go through all their telephone calls on the dates during the period in question. They have now revised at appeal stage.
Fab job Sarah - thanks for sharing :)