Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Waiting days for UC
But presumably if it turns out that you have LCWRA and did have all along, the decision can be revised for ignorance of the facts or on the claimant’s application and the award can start earlier?
Ideally you would hope that the LCWRA could be determined before the first UC pay date but I don’t suppose that is very realistic is it?
But you can still only have LCWRA element from assessment period after the three months relevant period - reg 28 - so I don’t think it can be revised back before that.
The way I read it Reg 28 is saying you cannot have the extra allowance included in your UC award for three months in most cases, but I think you can still have LCWRA as an inherent personal characteristic from Day 1. This would also exempt you from conditionality from Day 1 as well.
So in a perfect world where decisions are made promptly, the DWP would say to the claimant at an early stage “You have LCWRA so you don’t need to be signing on, and you won’t have to serve any waiting days either. Moreover, your UC will increase in three months”.
Regulation 20 of the Transitional Provisions regs, carries the assessment phase of ESA rules across where people transfer before the end of the assessment phase but that’s pretty difficult to do ATM unless forming a new relationship.
The Disability Benefits Consortium raised this back in the draft legislation scrutiny process
““When a claimant is first awarded ESA, they receive a basic rate of ESA whilst their capability for work is confirmed…During the assessment phase, claimants do not have to take part in work-related activity…. claimants are required to provide up-to-date medical evidence now known as the ‘Statement of fitness for work’ (Fit note) showing that they have limited capability for work for any claim longer than seven days.”
What is being proposed under Universal Credit?
The rules around the assessment phase, for those applying for the equivalent of ESA(I) under Universal Credit, are not replicated in the draft Universal Regulations.
From discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions, the intention under Universal Credit is:
• that people on ESA(I) will be subject to full conditionality (“all work-related requirements”) during the assessment phase and throughout an appeal, whereas
people on contribution-based ESA will not;
This means that claimants with an equivalent disability and / or health condition applying for ESA(C) will face different work-related conditions through the assessment phase for ESA to those applying for ESA(I) (or the equivalent in UC)
.
Citizens Advice has been told, by DWP, that:
• ‘the regulation’ has been redrafted to clarify that work-related requirements may be lifted where a claimant is unfit for work for longer than 14 days and where advisers identify that it is not reasonable to require claimants to fulfil work-related requirements.
We would welcome confirmation of this.
In addition, there remains confusion about those UC claimants who become ill or disabled, and how this might impact the work-related requirements imposed on them. The DWP have stated that:
• from October 2013, where UC claimants become ill or disabled, claimants will remain in their appropriate ‘work requirements’ group (including the “all work-related requirements” group), with work-related requirements being tailored accordingly.
Disability organisations have been told that this does not mean disabled claimants cannot be moved into a different – and more appropriate – work-conditionality group, and their claimant commitment requirements amended accordingly. We believe this issue needs clarifying.
These changes potentially place enormous pressure on Jobcentre Plus Personal Advisers to use their discretion and ‘assess’ the work capabilities of someone. This is, in effect, the same assessment that is then made by the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). “
Is it the case that Housing Benefit will be paid during the 7 day waiting period for existing HB claimants or will that never occur due to legacy benefits being exempt from the wait?
When the migration starts the 7 waiting days will not apply. It will only be for new UC claims that there is a potential 7 day waiting period and note that it starts on 3rd August, and effectively means the assessment period for UC does not start until day 8.
Govt defeated in the Lords -
‘... this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee’s Report of June 2015, to delay the enactment of the Universal Credit (Waiting Days) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 until Universal Credit is fully rolled out (SI 2015/1362).’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/150713-0003.htm#15071327000701
Is that it then, or does it go back to Parliament (where it could be reinstated/amended)?
Any Parliamentary procedural people out there?
I think it goes back to Parliament for them to formally ignore it.
Sadly, I’m with Steve (who made me laugh- thank you Steve!)
Would have been different I think if the House had passed a resolution annulling the SI - the “negative resolution” procedure as it is known. But it seems that all they have done in practice is make a disapproving statement with no legislative effect.
So have the waiting days come in now? Did the House of Commons deal with the waiting days in the second reading of the Welfare bill or do they have to tackle the waiting days separately?
As far as I am aware it didn’t go back down to the Commons before they broke up for their hols - so House of Lords amendment stands? What do other people think?
BTW call centres are telling claimants they have to wait 7 days for their money as their internal advice system tells them such. Out of date information - surely not!
The news story giving details of the adm memo is on the front page today - so it looks like it has come in - is that right when it was rejected by the house of lords?
The position is as follows. The minister passed an amendment to the UC Regs to introduce the waiting days provisions. The waiting days provisions and a power to make regulations concerning them are contained in a direct power in primary legislation (s6 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012). The Lords simply put down and won a motion in the House (garnering the opinion of the House) urging the Minister to delay implementing the amending regs. The Lords motion did not amend anything. The Minister is entirely free to consider the motion, ignore it altogether (hinted at above) or consider and reject it. The House of Commons does not need to be in session for him to do this.
Regulations laid under s6 are, as mentioned by HB Anorak, subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is the possibility of an annulment by either House. However, a statutory instrument can only be annulled in its entirety by this procedure. It cannot be amended. But, it should be noted that it is each statutory instrument itself that is subject to the procedure, so the amendment regulations can be annulled without damaging the initial substantive regulations.
There are time limits to start annulment proceedings and as far as I’m aware none were started and the time limit is now up. And, annulments are rare.
The position is as follows. The minister passed an amendment to the UC Regs to introduce the waiting days provisions. The waiting days provisions and a power to make regulations concerning them are contained in a direct power in primary legislation (s6 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012). The Lords simply put down and won a motion in the House (garnering the opinion of the House) urging the Minister to delay implementing the amending regs. The Lords motion did not amend anything. The Minister is entirely free to consider the motion, ignore it altogether (hinted at above) or consider and reject it. The House of Commons does not need to be in session for him to do this.
Regulations laid under s6 are, as mentioned by HB Anorak, subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is the possibility of an annulment by either House. However, a statutory instrument can only be annulled in its entirety by this procedure. It cannot be amended. But, it should be noted that it is each statutory instrument itself that is subject to the procedure, so the amendment regulations can be annulled without damaging the initial substantive regulations.
There are time limits to start annulment proceedings and as far as I’m aware none were started and the time limit is now up. And, annulments are rare.
looks like we have our answer today on what he intends to do.
Hi,
Just interested to see if anyone has made a HB claim for the UC 7 waiting day period and if so did they have any luck with it?
I’ve made one claim which I’ve been told that today that it’s not going to be awarded - we’re just waiting for the decision letter now confirming that so we can consider appealing