Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC decisions - worries about lack of detail
This was always likely to be an issue given that all overpayments are recoverable.
Presumably because the assessment / payment history is updated to show only the ‘revised’ entitlement for each assessemnt period it is difficult to work backwards to assertain a possible explanation for and calculation of the overpayment? Nor is there any explanation in the journal?
Anticipated UC wil generate a lot of unneccessary MRs & appeals as an appeal submission will be the only practical way to get the information and explanation required to advise a client if there are any grounds to challenge the calculation of the o/p in the first place! - rather like with many TC o/p’s - CTC/2662 & 3981/2005 para 19.
Very difficult - without help I can’t see how the claimant would work out if they had in fact been overpaid & whether the amounts are correct.
Also agree that it’s very concerning MR/appeal rights aren’t flagged up more, because even if all o/ps are recoverable, there’s still the question of whether she was in fact overpaid.
And then of course there’s the question of whether anyone is going to even think about asking the DWP not to recover when they don’t mention this as an option & the guidance has disappeared.
Andrew - a question - did the claimant actually get this in the post or was the letter attached to their online account?
It was on the online account. I didn’t have to remove any identifying marks - there weren’t any.
Can’t you challenge the legality of the purported decision itself? My emphasis.
71ZB Recovery of overpayments of certain benefits
(1)The Secretary of State may recover any amount of the following paid in excess of entitlement—
(a)universal credit….
(2)An amount recoverable under this section is recoverable from—
(a)the person to whom it was paid, or
(b)such other person (in addition to or instead of the person to whom it was paid) as may be prescribed.
(3)An amount paid in pursuance of a determination is not recoverable under this section unless the determination has been—
(a)reversed or varied on an appeal, or
(b)revised or superseded under section 9 or section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998,
except where regulations otherwise provide.
Do the rrelevant egulations allow for a sec.9 or 10 decision not to be made for UC overpayments? Do claimants no longer have to receive decision notices to the same effect as for any overpayment at least, so that they can understand what is supposed to have taken place? There is absolutely nothing in this shabby letter that fulfils the statutory requirements here. The fact is that a revision or supersession decision is still needed, as well as a separate and later overpayment decision as far as I’m aware.
Paul, many thanks. I will work on this.
I know this is beside the point but did you delete parts of the sentences or was it really this poorly written?
No reference to the years for the dates they refer to, the use of an acronym that I’m sure isn’t used in common parlance (LCWRA), lack of full stops and inappropriate use of capital letters - some months warrant one whilst others don’t!
I mean my grammar isn’t great but .....
Yes, it really is as received by the claimant. No alterations or deletions.
I’ve raised the (lack of) quality of UC communications before, but things have not improved.
I’m sending that letter to the UC communications team for their comments…
Can’t you challenge the legality of the purported decision itself? My emphasis.
71ZB Recovery of overpayments of certain benefits
(1)The Secretary of State may recover any amount of the following paid in excess of entitlement—
(a)universal credit….
(2)An amount recoverable under this section is recoverable from—
(a)the person to whom it was paid, or
(b)such other person (in addition to or instead of the person to whom it was paid) as may be prescribed.
(3)An amount paid in pursuance of a determination is not recoverable under this section unless the determination has been—
(a)reversed or varied on an appeal, or
(b)revised or superseded under section 9 or section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998,
except where regulations otherwise provide.
Do the rrelevant egulations allow for a sec.9 or 10 decision not to be made for UC overpayments? Do claimants no longer have to receive decision notices to the same effect as for any overpayment at least, so that they can understand what is supposed to have taken place? There is absolutely nothing in this shabby letter that fulfils the statutory requirements here. The fact is that a revision or supersession decision is still needed, as well as a separate and later overpayment decision as far as I’m aware.
It may be worth going back into the awards section of the journal, to see if the decision(s) for the months in question have been altered in the background (e.g. see this thread).
Good point Jon.