× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC full service claims ‘closed’ 

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

I have now had 3 cases where a UC Full service claim has been ‘closed’ (not disallowed) just ‘closed’ due to the claimant not attending either the Identity Interview at the jobcentre or the Claimant Commitment Interview.

In one case, the claimant’s phone was broken for a few days so she had no access to her online acct to find out about the interview, and although in theory she could have accessed a public computer, actually she had stored her passwords on her phone.  UC encourages people to use smart phones to access their accts. 

Rather than just leave the claim open for her to make contact to rearrange, it was closed within 24 hours of the FTA. 

Is this covered by C & P Regs.  Reg 8 (5) and (6) allows for a ‘defective’ claim to be corrected within one month.  If there is no claim without the identify verification and the claimant commitment, then surely this is a ‘defect’ which can be corrected.

I’m not familiar with any caselaw on ‘defective claims’ from legacy benefits so please what are your views?

Either way, its unreasonable, because it leaves no opportunity for DWP to find out the reasons for the missed appointment.  THey might have been in hospital or dealing with a family emergency and unable to make contact until a few days later. 

It is causing not only anxiety and frustration at having to start the whole claim process again, but also delaying receipt of income, and causing rent arrears.  One claimant said that the helpline had said ‘they will backdate’ but I am not too sure that this is a guarantee, as the backdating regs do not cover this eventuality specifically.

Alice SF
forum member

Welfare Benefit & Debt Advisor, Hounslow Foodbank Project, Staying First London

Send message

Total Posts: 43

Joined: 13 March 2012

Hi Sarah, sorry I can’t answer your question but wanted to say that I had a very similar case.  Clt failed to attend his commitments meeting but was in hospital.  This had been notified to his work coach who put a note on his claim by our DWP partnership manager that we would contact when he was discharged (he had been in intensive care and then isolation due to contracting MRSA).  We have submitted a MR but after the one month deadline as he had not logged into his claim for a few weeks after discharge so did not know it had been closed.

I’d be really interested to know how you get on with this.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

As UC is so tangled and amendments are lobbed in here there and everywhere and are sometimes hard to find, this line of argument may not work but:

It would appear from the UC Claims and Payments Regulations that if a claim is made properly under Regulation 8 then the date of claim is established in accordance with Regulation 10 and the claim is of indefinite duration (Reg 36 C&P) and cannot be ended by anything other than a revision/supersession. Nothing in these Regs demands attendance at the Jobcentre.

I can’t see the equivalent in UC of the JSA requirement (Reg 20 C&P Regs 2013) requiring attendance at an appropriate office before a claim is accepted as being properly made.

Have they the legal power to close a claim entirely as they seem to be doing?

 

 

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

PS I have put in a FoI request asking for the legal basis, plus a copy of any relevant guidance. Reply due by 27/7/17.

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

Thanks Andrew.  I think they will say the claim is not properly made until ID verified in case of first interview.  Will also say if claimant commitment not ‘accepted’ then basic qualifying criteria for UC not met, but in my view that is a deciision of non-entitlement and there should still be an opportunity to given to accept the commitment - ie a rearranged appt if reason for not attending the first one.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

As a related matter, UC also say that ‘if a customer does not book their appointment within 7 days of making their UC claim online, the claim will be cancelled and they will need to reapply again online.’

Can anyone point me to the rules that allow this cancellation?

And ‘reapply again’.....for goodness sake!!!!

Kelly @ NHHG
forum member

Notting Hill Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 10

Joined: 20 November 2017

I am going to Tribunal on this issue, hearing listed for 3rd May.

My case:
26/05/17 online claim submitted
08/06/17 claim closed due to failure to book interview
11/07/17 2nd online claim submitted
13/07/17 initial interview missed due to family sickness
18/07/17 2nd claim closed for failure to attend interview
01/08/17 3rd online claim submitted
08/08/17 claimant attended initial interview at JCP 1, was told it should’ve been at JCP 2
14/08/17 initial interview missed because claimant did not know it had been booked
22/08/17 3rd online claim closed
23/08/17 4th online claim submitted
24/08/17 claimant attended initial interview at JCP 2
28/09/17 claim went into payment

09/10/17 MR request submitted requesting backdate
22/11/17 MRN states that claims 1,2 and 3 were defective.  Allowed claim 3 and backdated to 1 August.
22/12/17 SSCS1 submitted putting DWP to strict proof of defects, notification of the same and the one month time limit permitted to rectify.
02/02/18 Appeal papers arrive.  DWP has decided that claims 1 and 2 were not defective (silent regarding claim 3).  State that they were closed due to failure to book Jobcentre appointment and quote regulation 37.
02/03/18 Direction from Tribunal that presenting officer MUST attend. *snigger*

I’ve just sent the submission arguing that regulation 37 doesn’t confer a power to close claims, a separate entitlement decision would need to be made.  This CPAG article explains it really well: http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/closing-universal-credit-claims

(Also argued, to cover all my bases:
- claimant commitment had been accepted online so s4(1)(e) is satisfied
- if claim defective DWP failed to notify claimant and allow one month (longer is reasonable) to rectify defect
- if interview was work-related requirement should have sanctioned not closed claim). 

Happy to revert with outcome of the hearing.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Please do. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I have had several similar cases where DWP have backed down on Reg 37 and have admitted they misapplied it. On another recent one they backed down using Reg 8 UC D&A Regs.

I suspect that this ‘close the claim’ thing has arisen from internal UC culture as well as the outright confusion caused by UC and never had any legal justification whatsoever.

Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 767

Joined: 16 June 2010

Kelly-

Interesting and appalling set of facts- I think even the DWP would accept, based on the FOI request Andrew previously did which is linked to from the article you mention, that they should have allowed at least a month before any of the “closing” decisions. Have you quoted them the FOI response? That has sorted things out for me in most cases.

Of course that means that your case can’t test the point about whether failure to comply with reg 37 creates a free standing right to refuse a claim (as they should accept that there was, at the time the claims were closed, no failure to comply with reg 37 as claimant had not had a month to reply).

Would love to see DWP submissions on those appeals if that is possible.

Martin

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 9 January 2017

The attached letter by David Gauke may be helpful as part of the narrative.

File Attachments

Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 767

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks Andy. Basically that letter suggests that a failure to comply with reg 37 of the UC etc (C&P) gives rise to a ground to close claim. R(IS)6/04 on the similarly structured reg 7 of C&P held otherwise.

On the point of them potentially saying a claim not properly made until the interview attended (Sarah’s point about what they might argue)- reg 37 only operates as all once a valid claim has been made (there are other rules requiring remedy of defective claim) and until such time as the claim is decided (at which point it ceases to exist).

Martin

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 9 January 2017

Martin Williams - 27 April 2018 11:10 AM

Thanks Andy. Basically that letter suggests that a failure to comply with reg 37 of the UC etc (C&P) gives rise to a ground to close claim. R(IS)6/04 on the similarly structured reg 7 of C&P held otherwise.

On the point of them potentially saying a claim not properly made until the interview attended (Sarah’s point about what they might argue)- reg 37 only operates as all once a valid claim has been made (there are other rules requiring remedy of defective claim) and until such time as the claim is decided (at which point it ceases to exist).

Martin

Thanks Martin i take your points. But i was actually thinking on a prosaic level i.e. the last paragraph of the letter which is arguably an erstwhile tacit admission of systemic problems relevant to that time by the Secretary of State, as part of the wider narrative affecting a lot of UC claimants, which Sarah’s client was caught up in.

 

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 27 April 2018 12:58 PM
Martin Williams - 27 April 2018 11:10 AM

Thanks Andy. Basically that letter suggests that a failure to comply with reg 37 of the UC etc (C&P) gives rise to a ground to close claim. R(IS)6/04 on the similarly structured reg 7 of C&P held otherwise.

On the point of them potentially saying a claim not properly made until the interview attended (Sarah’s point about what they might argue)- reg 37 only operates as all once a valid claim has been made (there are other rules requiring remedy of defective claim) and until such time as the claim is decided (at which point it ceases to exist).

Martin

Thanks Martin i take your points. But i was actually thinking on a prosaic level i.e. the last paragraph of the letter which is arguably an erstwhile tacit admission of systemic problems relevant to that time by the Secretary of State, as part of the wider narrative affecting a lot of UC claimants, which Sarah’s client was caught up in.

 

More crudely (but that’s just my way) it’s an admission that they don’t know what they’re doing but they’re confident that they will fumble their way out of it eventually.

It’s worth reminding DWP that this miracle-cure of a benefit was first thought up in 2010 and was supposed to have taken over from all existing legacy benefit claims, with absolute success of course, some time last year.

Kelly @ NHHG
forum member

Notting Hill Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 10

Joined: 20 November 2017

As promised - an update on the outcome of my case (set out above).

Judge Bowes allowed the appeal but on grounds that my client had good reason for the delay in compliance with Regulation 37.

I’m yet to take instructions from my client regarding a further appeal.  It is unlikely she’ll want to proceed further as it would only delay payment of backdated UC and she has substantial rent arrears to address. 

I raised this issue at a recent DWP seminar for RSLs.  The DWP rep was also a bit perplexed that an appointment was required to complete the claim process when ID verification and claimant commitment had both been provided online.  He suggested that, because so many claimants do not make it through the online ID verification (some 83%), it may be a matter of process for all claimants to be required to attend an appointment.  He agreed to look into the matter and send me any relevant guidance, should it exist.

stevejohnsontrainer
forum member

@theflipchart ltd

Send message

Total Posts: 124

Joined: 15 August 2013

As Andrew Dutton pointed out on this thread last year, once a (valid) UC claim is made, it should run indefinitely (reg 36 C+P regs) until it is terminated one way or another. The subsequent FOI suggests ‘case closure’ does not mean an invalid claim.

If a claim is ‘closed’, it must surely mean it has been effectively terminated.

So far as I can see, all roads therefore lead back to s8 of the SSAA 1998. Decisions to terminate are appealable, after MR etc. That means the claimant has to be properly notified and told they have challenge rights.

Clearly, none of this is happening when claims are simply ‘closed’. Claimants then have no access to the journal etc, even if they wanted to register challenge/appeal. So ‘closure’ action must therefore be improper/unlawful. As such, one could argue the claim (‘case’?) is NOT closed and maybe eventually seek arrears via the FtT.

I am not confident that the DWP even equates ‘case closure’ action with the requirements of ‘termination’. I suspect they regard ‘case closure’ as some kind of indefinite suspension, that is bound to get the claimant’s attention and therefore immediate compliance with UC interview requirements.

I think the closure amounts to an unlawfully processed (and invalid) termination. The suspicion is that they are closing cases simply ‘because they can’. 

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

stevejohnsontrainer - 16 May 2018 12:05 PM

As Andrew Dutton pointed out on this thread last year, once a (valid) UC claim is made, it should run indefinitely (reg 36 C+P regs) until it is terminated one way or another. The subsequent FOI suggests ‘case closure’ does not mean an invalid claim.

If a claim is ‘closed’, it must surely mean it has been effectively terminated.

So far as I can see, all roads therefore lead back to s8 of the SSAA 1998. Decisions to terminate are appealable, after MR etc. That means the claimant has to be properly notified and told they have challenge rights.

Clearly, none of this is happening when claims are simply ‘closed’. Claimants then have no access to the journal etc, even if they wanted to register challenge/appeal. So ‘closure’ action must therefore be improper/unlawful. As such, one could argue the claim (‘case’?) is NOT closed and maybe eventually seek arrears via the FtT.

I am not confident that the DWP even equates ‘case closure’ action with the requirements of ‘termination’. I suspect they regard ‘case closure’ as some kind of indefinite suspension, that is bound to get the claimant’s attention and therefore immediate compliance with UC interview requirements.

I think the closure amounts to an unlawfully processed (and invalid) termination. The suspicion is that they are closing cases simply ‘because they can’.

I have to say I agree (but then again I would)
DWP guidance appears to be completely off-beam on this and unless it is changed the situation will keep on happening.
This is the version of the guidance available via Rightsnet:
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2017-0556/32_Claim_closure__re-claims_v1.0.pdf

PS - I predict trouble with the ‘annual review’ or whatever it’s called also

 

stevejohnsontrainer
forum member

@theflipchart ltd

Send message

Total Posts: 124

Joined: 15 August 2013

The ‘claim closure’ guidance referred to promises a ‘decision notification’ that will include appeal rights. So it is clearly then a decision to terminate. The guidance does not say what form the notification will take, and such notification does not appear to be happening.

The guidance also says says a ‘a journal note entry is added to this effect’. How do you read that if you have no further access?

Philippa D
forum member

Weymouth & Portland Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 123

Joined: 2 January 2018

You can still view the journal on a closed claim, you just can’t post anything new to it. And given that any challenges to decisions are supposed to be done via the journal…

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

We know that closure for not making/attending an appointment is a crock, but the other examples given in the guidance of where claims should be ‘closed’ also appear questionable to a greater or lesser extent.

‘Claims are closed for a number of reasons but the common factor is that the claimant is no longer receiving Universal Credit payments.’

Why, for instance, would bereavement necessarily mean the end of payments?

Moving in to education would not necessarily disentitle some people.

‘Failed to review their details’? Meaning?

This seems like very poor stuff.

Does anyone know if this guidance has been updated recently?

Examples:
hasn’t accepted their Commitment within 7 days
• hasn’t booked their Initial Evidence Interview
hasn’t done annual verification
• has re-claimed but not booked First Commitment meeting
suffered bereavement of:
• partner •
child •
person for whom they were the carer •
non-dependants in some circumstances •
moved in to full time education
failed to book initial interview or attend the interview •
failed their Habitual Residency Test •
didn’t accept their Commitment •
failed to provide evidence •
failed to review their details