UC sanction length increasing when claimant working

This case is making me scratch my head a lot and thought the Rightsnet community may be able to assist.

Claimant failed to attend an appointment on 10/08/16 and received a 41 day sanction (which I understand to be 13 days until compliance and then 28 day standard sanction period).

She then failed to attend an appointment on 25/04/17 and received a 29 day sanction (presumably 1 day until compliance and then 28 standard sanction period).

Despite the age of the sanctions, she still has “days” outstanding.  10 days for the first sanction and the full 29 days for the second.  When we called UC, we were told that this is because the claimant has been working and there has therefore been no personal allowance upon which to impose the reduction required by the sanctions.

I am challenging the sanctions on a number of grounds:
- claimant had good reason for failing to comply (medical evidence of mental health issues a time of missed appointments)
- clarify the length of the sanctions (and the non compliance days)
- sanctions should end after 6 months of claimant working above threshold (I think 16 hours at NMW - will check)

My reading of reg 110 is that the amount of sanction is adjusted according to the personal allowance awarded but there doesn’t seem to be anything about carrying over the sanction when the personal allowance is 0.  So I’ll also be asking which regs permit sanctions to be applied in this way (I can’t find them, although they may well be there!)  Applying sanctions in this way, seems to me, to run counter to the purpose of the sanction system and indeed, UC.  This claimant receives her punishment for longer because she is doing as required…

Thoughts and comments welcome!

I think regulation 107 dispenses with their interpretation of it: the reduction period continues to run as if a daily deduction were being made, even though the award has terminated.

This UC claim hasn’t been terminated in this case.  The claimant is still entitled to Housing Costs.  Would regulation 107 still apply?

Hi Kelly,

1. The sanction length in the case of failure to attend an interview for someone in full conditionality group is set by reg 104- Low-level sanction. It is equal to:

a) the number of days from and including the date of failure up to and including the day before claimant complies (see reg 104(2)(a)); and

b) a punishment period of 7. 14 or 28 days (which one depends on whether it is first, second or third of more occasion claimant has been sanctioned under a low level sanction within a rolling 12 month period) (reg 104(2)(b)).

2. So if you are right that in each case then 28 days punishment period is being added, the claimant presumably has at least 2 other earlier sanctions that should also be challenged. If it is not the 28 days then the time until compliance was longer.

3. I see nothing in the regulations that causes a reduction period to be paused when a claimant starts work. Reg 106 governs when the period of reduction is to start (either the start of the AP in which sanction imposed or if they don’t manage that then the start of the next AP). Reg 107 to 109 deal in turn with the reduction period (1) continuing where award terminates, (2) being suspended when a fraud penalty is being applied and (3) being terminated when claimant in paid work for at least 6 months and meets other conditions. Importantly there is nothing in here about them suspending the reduction whilst the claimant is earning and thus has no personal allowance being paid due to income - the idea I thought was they would take it from housing costs element. If that element is not big enough for them to take it from then I think that is just money they don’t get to sanction (claimants award cannot be reduced beyond £0.

4. So when you say they paused the sanction I think that is wrong. If I am right on that then I guess a question arises as to whether they overpaid and that is now recoverable? If they were to take that approach they would at least need to make a decision to that effect.

Don’t know what others think on this?

I agree, I cant see why there was no deduction for a sanction just because she had earned income, given that to have a sanction terminated you would have to have been earning above your threshold for 6 months. 

The important thing to remember is that the personal allowance used in a UC calculation cannot be 0 ... the personal allowance and the housing costs element are not separate benefits.  They are both just amounts used in the calculation of Universal Credit.

It sounds like she had earnings which meant that she had an award of UC less than the her ‘max UC’ and that the amount of UC that was left in payment (after the deduction for earnings) was being used to pay her housing costs.

The sanction deduction is not ‘the personal allowance’ it is based on a ‘daily rate’ calculated by reference to the ‘amount of the personal allowance’ ... so the deduction can be applied to whatever UC is in payment, whether or not the UC award is being used for housing costs (direct to landlord or otherwise). 

This is in-work conditionality working as the policy intends.  I’ve already seen one person at risk of eviction because of this scenario where she had no income from which to pay her rent because she only had 16 hours earnings and her UC award was subject to a sanction deduction.

I pointed the very same out to a certain Mr Couling on twitter last night when he (wrongly) challenged me that under, UC amounts for children and housing costs remain in pay because only ‘the personal allowance’ is sanctioned.

‘I pointed the very same out to a certain Mr Couling on twitter last night when he (wrongly) challenged me that under, UC amounts for children and housing costs remain in pay because only ‘the personal allowance’ is sanctioned.’

Any response from Mr C?