× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Managed migration, calculation of transitional amount

Pete at CAB
forum member

Welfare Benefits Adviser’ for Citizens Advice Cornwall

Send message

Total Posts: 380

Joined: 12 December 2017

Does anyone know if the The Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 have been enacted?

I’m particularly interested in Reg 62 as this might allow the retrospective addition of a transitional amount for the SDP provided the claimant was already getting IR ESA and applied for PIPS before the terminal date for migration

62.—(1) Nothing in regulation 53 (total legacy amount) or 54 (indicative UC amount) requiring a calculation in relation to the transitional element to be made on the basis of information held on the migration day prevents the Secretary of State from revising or superseding a decision in relation to a claim for, or an award of, universal credit where—

(a)in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the information held on that day was inaccurate or incomplete in some material respect because of—

(i)a misrepresentation by a claimant,

(ii)a failure to report information that a claimant was required to report where that failure was advantageous to the claimant, or

(iii)an official error; or

(b)a decision has been made on or after the migration day on—

(i)an application made before migration day to revise or supersede a decision in relation to an award of an existing benefit (including the report of a change of circumstances), or

(ii)an appeal in relation to such an application.

Any thoughts?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Yes they are still in place (they added reg 44-64 to the UC (Transitional Provisions) regs 2014) - they were amended by Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2022 (SI.No.752/2022) but it doesn’t look like reg 62 was affected - see https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/amendments-to-universal-credit-natural-migration-and-managed-migration-provisions-including-removal-of-10000-limit-on-awards-under-managed-migration

[ Edited: 11 Aug 2022 at 03:17 pm by Daphne ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

The regs deal with managed migration and the ‘transitional element’ which is calculated by comparing the ‘total legacy amount’ with the ‘indicative UC amount’.

The point of reg 62 is to deal with the situation where the transitional element needs to be recalculated because either the total legacy amount or indicative UC amount turn out to be wrong as a result of either mistake or the resolution of an outstanding revision/supersession request or appeal in relation to an ‘existing benefit’.

Reg 62 would apply to, for instance, a case where the client was on ESA with LCW only and had an ongoing appeal seeking the support component and EDP. If that appeal was successful, both the total legacy amount and indicative UC amount would need to be changed and the UC transitional element would need to be revised.

However reg 62 is not as permissive as your post suggests. If someone has applied for PIP before they are migrated and then gets an award after they are migrated, the inclusion of the SDP in their pre-UC irESA award does not engage either reg 62(1)(a), because it is not claimant misrepresentation or official error or reg 62(1)(b) because it is not the resolution of a pre-existing revision or supersession application, or appeal arising in the context of an ‘existing benefit’ (which is a defined term and means a legacy benefit, so not PIP).

I question whether reg 62 is really necessary at all. The calculation of the total legacy amount is based on entitlement. It seems to me that if the claimant has an entitlement to benefit at the point of migration which is only discovered at some later date (or conversely where the claimant turns out to have been overpaid), then it would follow that the DWP are able to recalculate the transitional element without the authority of reg 62. (Although this perhaps takes us back to the old arguments about the SDP gateway and reg 4A and whether a person who was discovered after the fact to qualify for the SDP fell within the scope of the gateway or not).

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Elliot Kent - 11 August 2022 07:10 PM

I question whether reg 62 is really necessary at all. The calculation of the total legacy amount is based on entitlement. It seems to me that if the claimant has an entitlement to benefit at the point of migration which is only discovered at some later date (or conversely where the claimant turns out to have been overpaid), then it would follow that the DWP are able to recalculate the transitional element without the authority of reg 62. (Although this perhaps takes us back to the old arguments about the SDP gateway and reg 4A and whether a person who was discovered after the fact to qualify for the SDP fell within the scope of the gateway or not).

I think reg 62 may be needed because of the wording in reg 53(2): “on the basis of the information as to the claimant’s circumstances held by HMRC on that day”, and reg 53(4) and (7): “on the basis of the information held by the Secretary of State on that day”. Reg 54 then refers back to reg 53 in a few places.

However, for the transitional SDP element, the regs do only talk about entitlement, so there is no reg 62 equivalent. The element can still then be retroactively included where PIP is later awarded (as the Explanatory Memorandum to the original Managed Migration Regs explicitly states).