UC overpayment due to IRESA claim not ending

There were posts on this a year or so ago (under topic When claiming UC full service is it responsibility of claimant to close claim for Legacy benefits) and I am wondering if there is any update to the situation?  My cl was on IRESA in Support group and moved to UC in December as needed to claim housing costs.  Despite declaring each month ( in response to question about benefits which affect UC on journal) that she was receiving ESA, and her appointee 2 months in to the double payment specifically raising concerns on journal that ESA was still being paid, and the service centre assuring her they would get it stopped, ESA continued for a total of 61/2 months and she has now been sent an overpayment letter for £3700!  Is there any option other than the discretion not to recover, or complaint route?

The quick answer is “no”, as far as I am aware.

I have appealed two similar overpayment decisions on the basis that there was no evidence of previous UC determinations having been revised or superseded (section 71ZB(3) of the Social Security Administration Act) and on both occasions, the appeal has been lapsed because the appeals officer agreed. However, that does not prevent the whole process being started again (revision/supersession decisions being made and then a fresh overpayment decision) and my experience of these two cases is that, despite explaining to client at the outset that this was, at best, appealing on a technicality and that the overpayment decision could be made again, the resultant confusion between UC and Debt Management has probably caused more problems for the clients (rather than achieving anything particularly helpful).

I had challenged to refusal to waive recovery with Debt Management after they had said that the cause of the overpayment is not relevant when considering waiver - there is another thread on here (apologies, I haven’t mastered how to input a link yet) with a copy of a letter from Amber Rudd to Sir Oliver Letwin, specifically referring to the cause of the overpayment being a relevant factor that IS taken into consideration.

However, Debt Management had simply sent my letter to “UC” for consideration, despite the fact that they make the waiver decision themselves. The overpayment decision was lapsed on the section 71ZB point before I could get a second waiver decision. That case is still on going as the revision/supersession has now been carried out, together with a new overpayment decision.

Here’s link to the forum thread with the letter from Amber Rudd Brian mentions..

Nb - we’ve also got some help pages on how to format and add links to forum if they’re of any help Brian.

Thank you Stuart, for some reason I had never looked there at all!!

I am still getting cases in which the claimant has done all they can to make sure their UC payments are correct, but the DWP delays actions, messes up, causes an overpayment and then sends the claimant’s budget out of kilter with excessive recovery rates.

in each case so far, DWP has refused to accept that it has any responsibility.  It hides behind the blanket recoverability provided by the UC Regs. ‘Not us, guv’nor’.

In a case which the claimants appealed, the tribunal was obliged to find the overpayment recoverable, but it added comments on the decision notice which made it perfectly clear that the tribunal agreed the claimants had done all they possibly could and that DWP could very easily have prevented the entire problem by, for instance, checking the payments were correct when asked to do so, and listening to the claimants’ concerns.

In the face of this, DWP has very casually found itself not guilty of any maladministration and will not accept a formal complaint so the matter can’t go to ICE. Off to the MP we go. Again. Unfortunately this is an MP who has already refused to take up a similar case.

As I’ve said before, DWP has no incentive to reduce official error because it faces no sanction at all. Had a claimant messed up similarly, they would be slapped with a civil penalty as well as the overpayment. This situation must change.