Claims need decisions. Not so, says DWP

Well quite.

Closing a claim is an internal DWP administrative action which has been invented by the people who designed UC on a technical level. It has no legal significance.

Claims and decisions are of course an important legal process and it is the duty of the DWP to decide any claim for benefit as per s8(1)(a) Social Security Act 1998.

It is probably strongly arguable that a “claim closure” is an implicit decision to refuse the claim.

This may yet again be useful - http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/closing-universal-credit-claims

The question ‘What six month linking period?’ also occurs.

Further to Elliot’s points see extract of DWP guidance below and link to Rightsnet resources.

‘Closing the claim
If the claim should be closed, all outstanding appointments must be cancelled.
The claimant should receive a decision notification that the claim has been
closed, including consideration of appeal rights. A journal note entry is added to
this effect’

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0465/Claim_closure_and_re-claims_v8.0.pdf

Reg 51 of the UC, etc, Decisions and Appeal Regulations:

Notice of a decision against which an appeal lies
51.—(1) This regulation applies in the case of a person (“P”) who has a right of appeal under the 1998 Act or these Regulations.

(2) The Secretary of State must—

(a)give P written notice of the decision and of the right to appeal against that decision; and
(b)inform P that, where that notice does not include a statement of the reasons for the decision, P may, within one month of the date of notification of that decision, request that the Secretary of State provide a written statement of the reasons for that decision.
(3) If the Secretary of State is requested under paragraph (2)(b) to provide a written statement of reasons, the Secretary of State must provide such a statement within 14 days of the request or as soon as practicable afterwards.

Thanks guys. Now off I go to hit the brick wall…

I would like to let you know that thanks to fabulous assistance from CPAG’s Judicial Review Project (special bow to Jess), my client received a swift decision, following a submission of UC Claims Closure JR proposal template letter.

My client submitted a claim in February of this year. This was failed on HRT and she appealed. Subsequent two claims- where she tried to ask the DWP to pay attention to information already submitted (she did NOT provide new information; all that was needed to make a correct decision was already supplied)- were simply closed.

We were told by the JC+ that “the department cannot waste resources by completing identical HRT’s & MR’s multiple times”.

Therefore I have turned for help to JR Project and submitted JR proposal to DWP. I am still awaiting the DWP Legal Team’s response, but in the meantime client received MRN in her Journal

Clients MRN states: “There is currently no provision in legislation that states a claimant cannot submit a new claim for Universal Credit if they are awaiting the outcome of an appeal on a previous claim. I am satisfied, therefore, that the above claim closure decision is a decision which arose from official error and falls to be revised. Law: Social Security Act 1998 Regulation 8(1)(a) Universal Credit, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decision and Appeals) Regulations 2013, Regulations 5, 7 & 9(a)”

Appeal lapsed, claim accepted as of February 2019.

Client was nearly made homeless, during her struggle to persuade DWP that she is a primary carer. She survived on ChB and foodbank vouchers, got seriously ill with depression, Social Services got involved as young children were at risk. Client herself was a victim of severe domestic violence.

All this was known to DWP.
It should not have been necessary to threaten JR.

I attach relevant page from the MRN without identifying details. The letter is unsigned, not even with a job title. The letter states “a Mandatory Reconsideration was raised for you [...]”
It appears DWP is somewhat reluctant to state that they are responding to the JR proposal. They instead “raise MR” despite no such action taken by client. Hmm…