× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC unlawful detention compensation

parker
forum member

Welfare Rights Team - Stockton Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1

Joined: 10 September 2018

Does anyone know how The DWP treats compensation awarded by The Home Office for unlawful detention?
I have looked in CPAG handbook and can’t find any information.

A client was awarded £30,000+ compensation and The DWP have refused his claim for UC and have asked for receipts/proof of money spent…he doesn’t have any of that!

Thank you.

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

parker - 10 December 2019 12:52 PM

Does anyone know how The DWP treats compensation awarded by The Home Office for unlawful detention?

Not a lawyer, so maybe a lawyer on the forum might have an answer for you, but I Would have thought this could/would be classed as a personal injury compensation?

Thus disregarded under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/75 but if 12 months have passed since received and could still be viewed as notional capital in some instances.

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 437

Joined: 26 July 2012

The ADM section on this is here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832009/admh2.pdf

I think you/the client probably needs to check with their solicitor as to whether some or all of the compensation was for personal injury. That part of the compensation can be disregarded for 12 months or indefinitely if placed in trust.

Non PI compensation will count as capital and they won’t be entitled to UC till their capital goes below 16k.

Is the client still over 16k? If they are below the limit then the issue is also one of the DWP suggesting intentional deprivation which is why they are asking for that kind of evidence. Obviously if the compo is PI and can be disregarded then any issue of intentional deprivation falls away.

edit: Jinx! too slow!