“The gateway is closed”

OK, shall I start or does someone else want to go first? I am on a train with my phone so it will take too long to itemize all the inaccuracies in the circular here

Here’s the link to HB Circular A7/2018 from gov.uk

hbinfopeter - 17 September 2018 04:03 PM

Following a lot of discussion about whether a person can abandon a UC claim and reclaim Housing Benefits or ask for the latter to be revised in certain circumstances, DWP has clarified its position very clearly in HB Circular A7:

8. It should be noted that once a claim to UC has been made the gateway to legacy benefits is closed. In practice, the UC claim triggers the termination notice (known as an HB Stop Notice). Even if a claimant withdraws or ends their UC claim (regardless of whether they have received payment), they cannot choose to claim, re-claim or seek re-instatement of a legacy benefit. This continues to apply irrespective of whether the legacy benefit termination has been actioned ‘on time’.

Oh yeah. We have a client who claimed and was paid one month UC. Then he or UC (disputed) decided that whichever one of them it was should stop the UC. UC stopped.

CTC stopped. HB stopped. IS continued and continues. IS told council to pay HB. Council accepted a new claim for HB.  Seven months later council had second thoughts. HB now stopped again, council accepted that the HB payments are official error and unrecoverable.

Letter from IS confirming that it is being paid and has been paid “continuously since 2011”.  Client placing lots of weight on this decision and convinced he will win CTC FTT and get his HB back.

I rang IS—“do you realise he claimed UC?” “Oh yes, we know and we are not changing our minds about paying him IS” “You do realise he was paid one month’s UC?” long pause “hold on”

Some time later—“yes well we will be sending him an IS overpayment for that period but we are going to carry on paying him”

Me: “and you are not going to send him an overpayment for the rest? (Ie about 8mths of IS since the UC claim) “No definitely not”

“OK I’m putting that on record so now you can’t”

No further info. That is pretty well verbatim. It niggles away at me. I feel I must be missing something.

I have added a few comments to the Appendix at the end of this circular - attached.

The general tone of the circular is that claiming UC is somehow compulsory whenever a claimant has a change of circumstance.  While it is true that making a new claim for any other means tested benefit is generally not possible, there is a third option: don’t make a new claim.  For many people, this is the better buy.

In the body of the circular, the bald statement that UC claims may not be withdrawn and decisions ending HB may not be revised is not backed up by any legal references and is controversial to say the least.  It is unedifying to see DWP gleefully arguing that people who have second thoughts about UC should lose everything and have no income at all.  If you are going to argue that, at least back it up with reasoning.  I am still unconvinced that there is no merit in the following propositions:

1. The effect of withdrawing an undecided claim is to render it null and void, as if it never happened
2. Even in cases whjere DWP makes a decision to refuse UC because the claimant has not complied with some aspect of the process, in some cases this will happen before the four condiutions in s4(1)(a) to (d) have been cnfirmed (especially HRT) and it is therefore incorrect to end the HB award.