Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
backdating of Carer Addition
It can often take 12 months or more between a claim for PIP/DLA and a First Tier Tribunal decision. If as a result, someone becomes entitled to Carer’s Allowance then that can be backdated to the start of the Disability award. For IS, we used to write in advance and ask for the award to be “stockpiled”. What about UC? If no-one has advised the carer to put a note on their journal at the time the disability benefit is originally claimed, then does any addition just start in the AP following the one in which the DWP is informed?
Following my own train of thought… if Carer’s Allowance claimed and backdated is there then an overpayment of Universal Credit but, with the Carer’s Addition taken into account so it would have exactly the same effect as if claimed all along. But where only the addition is claimed (possibly earnings too high or for some other reason) then the addition would only start from when it was claimed.
A supersession which relates to an award of a relevant benefit to the claimant (e.g. Carer’s Allowance) or a member of their family (e.g. DLA for a child) is effective from when that other benefit was awarded as per para 31, sch 1 D&A Regs.
In practical terms, the DW will not offset CA against UC, so the claimant will usually receive a large payment of CA followed by a demand for repayment of the same amount of UC. The DWP will not automatically backdate the CE entitlement to cover the same period (despite the two necessarily co-existing). You need to ask the Case Manager to refer the issue of backdating to a Decision Maker and, often following a lot of insistence, it ought to get sorted out thereafter.
There are other threads discussing the practical difficulties in these cases.
Thanks Elliot. If the Carer’s Addition is not applied automatically it sounds as if some carers might lose out. They would get the backdated Carer’s Allowance and then have it all claimed back without knowing they could challenge this.
We’ve been keeping an eye on this too. I have given up to-ing and fro-ing via the claimant journal requesting backdating.
Formalised all requests by lodging an MR of the decision that includes the additional element but has not superseded previous APs to include arrears, even though claimants don’t get a decision letter at this point - only see change in the next statement.
This does get a faster (if sometimes somewhat defensive) response.
I suspect the process is the case manager authorises the inclusion of additional elements going forward following notification of a QB award, but a DM has to make the decision re backdating.
It is opaque as to what is going wrong here - are cases not being passed to DMs each time? One client got a note on the journal saying “we do have 30 days to consider backdating” - when it had been several months since client reported the QB award so….
And yes - our clients still get the legally inaccurate letter saying “OK you did not tell us in time but a DM has decided there are special circumstances to allow it”.
Following that letter - have still had to follow up to chase the actual amount/payment (resulting in a further decision letter raising MR rights when it should probably be an MR outcome in itself).
Not the most efficient way to process change of circs in UC :
- CM adjust going forward
- DM (if they see it) issues letter to confirm arrears allowed which - unfortunately - doesn’t determine for what period
- 2nd letter provides dates of adjusted APs and amount to be paid - present as a new decision (not an MR)
I have however recently got APs from Jan/Feb 23 adjusted when a child’s DLA award increased to HRC from MRC on renewal but the HRDCE had only been included from the AP when parent received/reported the award.
It does feel like UC processing considers itself to be outside the D+A regs.
(I was advised by a WCTL when raising an different issue of an any time review that “I checked with the CM and they said “we don’t currently have that”)
It does feel like UC processing considers itself to be outside the D+A regs.
(I was advised by a WCTL when raising an different issue of an any time review that “I checked with the CM and they said “we don’t currently have that”)
Love this sort of stuff. If only an adviser could respond by saying we had unilaterally deleted the duty to declare a change of circumstances. Let’s just make it all up shall we.