Work allowance from start of claim would have made all the difference?!

Hello, another mixed aged couple related query here!

Couple had a previous UC claim but entitlement was nil as income too high. It ran for 3 assessment periods and then the claim was closed. Older partner in receipt of AA so would have got the LCWRA element included from AP number 4, which is why I assume the claim was left open (I am guessing this bit!). Was told today that claim was then closed as younger partner didn’t accept commitments. Hmmm. Anyway I am looking at arguing this and a large part of my argument would be that client wouldn’t have necessarily known claim was being kept open so that LCWRA element could be added as this is an obscure rule and would have assumed a nil award meant no need to do anything.

BUT had the award included a work allowance (based on the older partner having LCWRA) from the start of the claim then they would have received some UC and likely claim would have been maintained.

Claim was closed in October, effective from July 2019, so would likely have to be a late MR (possibly any time revision if official error?) But need to check I have a valid argument and whether I am missing anything here. Thanks - again - in advance.

Edit: should have said have now reclaimed as a non digital claim and want to avoid another 3 month wait for LCWRA element if possible!!

I’m not really sure about your wider argument, but about your question whether a work allowance should be given from the start - see this thread.

Thanks Charles, had missed seeing the outcome on that thread, really helpful.  Hopefully we can work out a way to have the claim reopened and, if so, will push to get work allowance included from start of claim.