× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Universal Credit Retrospective Verification

‹ First  < 2 3 4

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Jo_Smith - 30 November 2021 04:49 PM

This retro verification horror show just rumbles on.
In just 2 last days: £27K “overpayment” letter for a disabled client. Claim closed. No decision notice issued. A note on the system (internal, because client has no Journal, she has a phone claim). Note says: claimant is not eligible. THAT IS IT. Called DWP. Poor inexperienced, untrained subcontractor utterly unable to deal with it. Refused to register request for WSOR or MR. Put us on hold and then…terminated the call.
Client is frantic- no money for Christmas. Apparently (because it is all guesswork at this point) it is because client was getting SDP when she claimed UC.
(She wasn’t, but this is the idea ventured by the clueless case manager…)

Another one- “overpayment” of 16K. Apparently because kids are FT students who live away during term time, thus, accordingly to whoever who did NO investigation, they are not entitled to their own bedrooms. Whoopsie, goes the whole housing costs element.

Things are VERY VERY bad in UC -land.

Jo - if you want to DM me details I will send that one up to them - clearly not following their procedure that they set out to me!!

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Have just had a discussion with a couple of DWP officials about their retrospective verification process. They have internal guidance which they say they are following which follows the law - have asked for a copy of it - they are going to ask but think unlikely they will provide. Did point out that it would be helpful for advisers to have - we could make suggestions for improvement if necessary, and we could also direct DWP staff to it if it was not being followed.

I’ll see what they come back with, but I guess if they don’t provide it I can do a FOI request.

They also acknowledged that things hadn’t all been done correctly in the past, but hopefully will be going forward. If you have case studies where things are not happening as they should, do let me know and I will feed them back so they can investigate.

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

Daphne - 14 December 2021 02:37 PM

Have just had a discussion with a couple of DWP officials about their retrospective verification process. They have internal guidance which they say they are following which follows the law - have asked for a copy of it

“All guidance was followed”

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

I’ve been dealing with a case in which the overpayment decision was overturned via MR on 22/11/21, and the decision stated that deductions (from claimant’s wages) would cease, and any monies would be returned to him.

I complained to DWP when no refund was made and deductions continued.

The response from Debt Management: ’ We took the UCOP out of recovery on 30/11/2021 and cancelled it on 08/12/2021. There is no refund due.
Claimants also have a Tax Credit Overpayment of £588.98 so they will need to ring us by 07/01/2022 to arrange a payment plan if they want to avoid a Direct Earnings Attachment.’

As of yesterday, in spite of a complaint to the constituency MP, Debt Management are still taking money direct from wages and the claimant is struggling to pay his bills.

There is something very, very wrong here, not just in the way these decisions were made but also in the lofty, arrogant conduct of Debt Management.

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

In response to written question on how many claims suspended under the Risk Review process have been reinstated as of 24 December 2021, David Rutley says -

‘Approximately 3% of cases reviewed under the Risk Review Process between May 2020 and the beginning of January 2022 have been re-instated.’

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

Daphne - 26 October 2021 09:49 AM

This is the response I received from DWP after chasing (2 months after I sent the urgent email!)

...:

As you’ll be aware, regulation 38 of The Universal Credit etc. Claims and Payments Regulations 2013 allows the Secretary of State to ask claimants for information or evidence to determine whether an existing award should be revised or superseded. Further the failure to provided that information or evidence triggers regulation 45 of the UC etc. Decision and Appeals regulations – suspension in prescribed circumstances. It is accepted that regulation 38 is not the means by which the Secretary of State can mount ‘fishing expeditions’ against claimants. Its use must be seen to be reasonable and proportionate. If there is reason to consider that a review is required, then given that taxpayers’ money is potentially at stake, quite rightly that review should be undertaken. What, of course, is then critical, is identifying affected cases and following correct process.

.

Seems like our local DM team didn’t get that memo…

File Attachments

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

I don’t know where to start with that one Dan.

How does reg 12 D&A come into it?

And what is going on with the last paragraph?

Surely the basis for the overpayment is that the DWP are trying to argue that they were entitled to conclude that your clients are not who they say they are because they were unable to provide evidence of their identities when asked. However in the last paragraph they seem to be conceding that they were never asked to provide that evidence.

juliem
forum member

Macmillan welfare rights advisor - Barnsley MBC, Barnsley

Send message

Total Posts: 118

Joined: 17 June 2010

Hello
Client claimed UC during covid and then went back to work. Has now had to reclaim due to cancer diagnosis.  UC have started claiming back £50 per month as they say ID was not verified and client owes an incredibly large figure. Client has done an MR, provided the ID and (also incredibly) spoken to Debt Management who say that the debt has been wiped out but UC need to confirm this to Debt Management and then they can stop charging the £50 per month.
Client has asked them to do this a number of times on journal but to no avail.
They have a phone call with their worker due, so I advised them to mention it to them, try putting it on the journal again and also to contact MP.
Are there any other ways of getting this rectified - why won’t UC talk to other bits of the DWP?
TIA

Jo_Smith
forum member

Citizens Advice Hillingdon

Send message

Total Posts: 325

Joined: 3 October 2018

Julie, as you may have followed this thread, you would see that retrospective verification is a bit of a post-apocalyptic wasteland, with no firm or just rules or practices. So complain- not the https://makeacomplaint.dwp.gov.uk/ website because it is a black hole where complaints go to die, but by email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), give them 15 working days and immediately email MP if still not sorted. As this is an incredibly poor service, request compensation, especially if client suffered any distress or hardship. Get the client to bang on about it in the Journal because the overpayment decisions are cleared by a DM, not case manager as far as I know, and the queue is long. Good luck!

juliem
forum member

Macmillan welfare rights advisor - Barnsley MBC, Barnsley

Send message

Total Posts: 118

Joined: 17 June 2010

Jo_Smith - 30 September 2022 02:09 PM

Julie, as you may have followed this thread, you would see that retrospective verification is a bit of a post-apocalyptic wasteland, with no firm or just rules or practices. So complain- not the https://makeacomplaint.dwp.gov.uk/ website because it is a black hole where complaints go to die, but by email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), give them 15 working days and immediately email MP if still not sorted. As this is an incredibly poor service, request compensation, especially if client suffered any distress or hardship. Get the client to bang on about it in the Journal because the overpayment decisions are cleared by a DM, not case manager as far as I know, and the queue is long. Good luck!

Thanks Jo
Is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) open to the public to use?

Jo_Smith
forum member

Citizens Advice Hillingdon

Send message

Total Posts: 325

Joined: 3 October 2018

There are no restrictions regarding this email address, as far as I know.

Rebecca Lough
forum member

Welfare rights - Greenwich Council

Send message

Total Posts: 222

Joined: 23 November 2018

Thoughts welcomed please. Couple who claimed UC in March 2020 but then were back at work and not claiming from July 2020 or so. No further benefit interactions or discussions since then. 

He suddenly gets a letter advising they’re deducting money from his wages in Sept 2022. Saw them today and checked the journal. In June 2021, UC wrote on the journal trying to get them to provide evidence of their housing costs. This was missed entirely because they did not get phonecalls and were not checking their journal (due to no benefit claim).

Formal decision dated July 2021 that it’s an overpayment of their housing costs because they didn’t provide proof (they had no idea it was being requested). Any idea on the best mechanism of challenging given it’s beyond 13 months? Any ground revision plus complaint..?

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

I’d be arguing that the deduction letter is the first notification of the decision. It’s a nonsense to notify someone on their journal when they’re not claiming any more.

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

Bump.

The appeal I excerpted above has been listed for hearing so I’m reprising the case and the thread.

The crux seems to be that DWP must revise before recovering. However reg 5 SS(OR) Regs 2013 may well say otherwise.

5.  Section 71ZB(3) of the Act (recoverability of an overpayment dependent on reversal, variation, revision or supersession) does not apply where the circumstances of the overpayment do not provide a basis for the decision pursuant to which the payment was made to be revised under section 9 of the Social Security Act 1998(1) or superseded under section 10 of that Act

Gulp… Can they recover their money if they just don’t like you?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Dan Manville - 29 November 2022 03:40 PM

Gulp… Can they recover their money if they just don’t like you?

Categorically, no.  It’s talking about banking errors etc. where the logic of revision and supersession isn’t apt to deal with the overpayment because the payment wasn’t authorised by a decision to begin with.

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

Elliot Kent - 29 November 2022 04:09 PM
Dan Manville - 29 November 2022 03:40 PM

Gulp… Can they recover their money if they just don’t like you?

Categorically, no.  It’s talking about banking errors etc. where the logic of revision and supersession isn’t apt to deal with the overpayment because the payment wasn’t authorised by a decision to begin with.

In the PAOR regs there’s specific provision for that but I don’t suppose it’s been brought in to the 2013 regime but I’ll have a proper look tomorrow.

It does feel like a bit of a trump card they could bend to their will though.