Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC decision about a different claimant put on clients journal
Here we go again .....
Dear DWP spybots - please explain!
UC WCA decision [UCD83] about a different person posted to my clients journal (a ‘fit for work’ outcome).
As ever with UC decisions there is no address or NiNo so no way of identifying whether this supposed to be about my client with the wrong name or about a different person.
Of course this means my client does not know whether to make an MR against the decision. In order to find out this means the client now has to attend our office so we can contact UC in his presence. As client has significant MH condition attendance is very difficult for them - or they could try phoning UC but again that is also difficult due to MH. The third option would be to post enquiry to journal and likely wait weeks for a response.
Of course the question also arises as to whether the named person has the same decision posted to their Journal.
Interesting to see how DWP will react to an argument that the decision has no legal validity!?
I wonder if this is a misconception about UC DWP will cover in their forthcoming Advertorial https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/mps-question-secretary-of-state-about-proposed-pr-campaign-for-universal-cr
UC WCA decision [UCD83] about a different person posted to my clients journal (a ‘fit for work’ outcome).
As ever with UC decisions there is no address or NiNo so no way of identifying whether this supposed to be about my client with the wrong name or about a different person.
how do you know it’s about the wrong person? presumably your client had not been waiting for a decision about his fitness to work ......
but otherwise - i agree, people should be able to see that such a thing definitely relates to them and not some other person….
UC WCA decision [UCD83] about a different person posted to my clients journal (a ‘fit for work’ outcome).
As ever with UC decisions there is no address or NiNo so no way of identifying whether this supposed to be about my client with the wrong name or about a different person.
how do you know it’s about the wrong person? presumably your client had not been waiting for a decision about his fitness to work ......
but otherwise - i agree, people should be able to see that such a thing definitely relates to them and not some other person….
I don’t know whether its meant to be about a different person or my client who had recently attended an assessment. However as the name of the person (in the absence of any other identifier like a NiNo) on the decision notice is not that of my client it can’t possibly (legally) be about my client whatever DWP intended!?
Guessing that they copy and pasted the decision from another case and forgot to change the names.
I’m not sure where the argument that the decision is not legally valid gets you. It’s not like ESA where your client would be treated as LCW until a decision was made to the contrary. If the decision is invalid, then your client just has to sit around and wait for a new valid decision which they will want to MR that anyway.
Presumably DWP will be notifying the other person of the data breach.
i think i’d be inclined to treat it as being abut your client and ask for MR. if it isn’t about him, they’ll say so, presumably; if it is, he clearly needs to MR and start the appeal process anyway
Claire / Elliott - it was a rhetorical question really - will of course pursue ‘all avenues’ in the interest of my client (and for our entertainment).
UCD83 is a standard letter (to the extend it does not even have to be personalised to include the WCA points score). I wonder if it requires any human input (to the extent of entering the claimants name on the letter) before pasting it to the journal or just press ‘UCD83’ button and the IT system should then personalise it to the specific claimant (given the error I assume it is the former) - not such a smart system then?
Its the first time we have seen a UC letter etc issued with the claimant incorrectly named - has anyone else seen this?
Does failure to notify a claimant of a decision render the decision invalid?
Does failure to notify a claimant of a decision render the decision invalid?
I have successfully cited R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Anufrijeva, [2003] UKHL 36 on this point (thanks to it being raised previously in this forum):
26. The arguments for the Home Secretary ignore fundamental principles of our law. Notice of a decision is required before it can have the character of a determination with legal effect because the individual concerned must be in a position to challenge the decision in the courts if he or she wishes to do so. This is not a technical rule. It is simply an application of the right of access to justice. That is a fundamental and constitutional principle of our legal system: Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1, 10G per Lord Wilberforce; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Leech, [1994] QB 198, 209D; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115.
How this applies to a decision that was received, but apparently addressed to someone else, I’m not sure. I think I’d be guided in part by, did the claimant understand it to be applicable to themselves or not?
UC now state it was about my client and have re-issued with the correct name. So no opportunity to argue the issue of valid notification if in the wrong name (with no other identifiers on the letter).
More entertainingly UC are blaming the assessment provider for applying the wrong name. UC are suggesting that the provider issues UC WCA decision notices! [affects Victor Meldrew voice] I don’t believe it!
I have successfully cited R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Anufrijeva, [2003] UKHL 36 on this point (thanks to it being raised previously in this forum)
Interesting. I found now the ADM quoting this decision, but still says the decision is valid, just not fully effective. Whatever that means! See paragraph A1015 here.