Jobcentre advising to claim UC with 3 children

We are in an area that has been full service for UC since Nov 16. We have a client who is a single parent with 3 children aged 7, 10 and 16. The children are all dependent and in non advanced education, and until very recently our client was in receipt of CB & CTC for all 3 of them. She worked until 6 mths ago, and as she was on a low income, also received CTC, HB, CTR. Her employment ended and she then claimed what we assume to be new style JSA, but continued to receive all the other legacy benefits as previously, although these were adjusted due to the drop in income. The JSA has now run out, and our client asked at the jobcentre what she could claim next. We assumed that she should be able to transfer onto IR JSA as having the 3 children would mean that she would not currently be eligible for UC. However she was advised at the jobcentre to claim UC, and just to ‘miss out’ the eldest child as they are over 16, despite the fact that they are still dependent. She has now started a claim, so all legacy benefits will cease, but she will be far worse off due to the loss of the benefit for the eldest child. UC presumably are not aware that the claim is incorrect, as they are not aware of this 3rd child at all. We are going to try and access her UC account with her and notify the 3rd child, but I am not sure if the UC claim can be withdrawn due to mis-advice, or how else this can now be rectified. Unless we are missing something, this just seems like shockingly bad advice. Has anyone any thoughts?

mm

i recall seeing another thread on this issue a few weeks ago - it might have been put under the new children’s bit?

Based on what we’re hearing about what seem like blatant attempts to get people onto UC even when they should not yet migrate I suspect we can add this to the list of malfeasance.

ClairemHodgson - 18 September 2018 04:36 PM

mm

i recall seeing another thread on this issue a few weeks ago - it might have been put under the new children’s bit?

yes, here:
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13226/

Thank you. So looking at the other thread, the advice seems to be to try and get the 3rd child included in the new UC award, even though the claim shouldn’t have been made in the first place?  We have now noted the clients journal re the 3rd child so will wait and see what their response is - but what a mess!

Sue Sowerby - 18 September 2018 03:32 PM

. . . she then claimed what we assume to be new style JSA,

Surely she shouldn’t have been able to claim new style JSA because the 2 child limit applies to that too.

Yes sorry, you’re right, it must have been CB JSA as a legacy benefit which ran out after 6 mths - and she should therefore have been able to be assessed for IR JSA instead of being advised to claim UC. I’m confusing myself now too!

I currently have a case where the client claimed and was paid UC for three children where the claim was made in the interim period (and paid for a period of 9 months). No question that client was entirely up front about the 3 kids from the outset. Recoverable overpayment decision in June, MR requested unsuccessfully by the referring agency in July - now looking to get the thing in front of someone who is actually able to make a decision to exercise discretion not to recover, but that’s a bit of a nightmare….

UC can take claims with 3+ children, if a client accidently tries to claim UC instead of legacy benefits it will still be processed and paid. We have claims here with 3 and 5 children on….once you are on UC you stay on it regardless. Ideally clients should come see us first for advice but that doesn’t always happen.

Had a client who had claimed UC in error with 3 children earlier this year (full service area). Claim closed after a couple of months due to non-entitlement with children and client had been able to then claim legacy benefits (ir-ESA, HB, Tax Credits) as a result - this is after client had made a complaint to JC+ and UC. It may be worth sending a complaint to both UC and JC+ to confirm non-entitlement to UC, and that client can go back onto legacy benefits respectively.

Although from my memory, client may have had a determination that she was not eligible based on 3 children, which meant her UC claim had closed - this may have been the difference between her staying on UC regardless and re-claiming legacy benefits.