Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC backdating and ‘has a disability’
Has anyone had time to go over what this may mean? (Reg 26 (3)(b) C&P Regs)
There is no definition of ‘disability’ and the Reg reads to me as if having a disability entitles a claimant to a backdate, no argument.
However, DWP is claiming in a case that is just off to appeal that although they agree the claimant has a mental illness, they refuse backdating as he ‘made a mistake’ which was unrelated to the illness.
Errr - how do they know?
Also, the cheeky so-and-sos have responded to the claimant’s statement that he was misled by DWP about what he could claim by saying that the Regs don’t cover DWP mistakes or misinformation!!!
That’s true enough - however, may they be hoist by their own petard? They use the context of a ‘mistake’ to dismiss the claimant’s disability - but what about the fact that we have a claimant with a disability who was also misled by DWP advice?
As a matter of fact, I’d say that context is not needed - unless they want to argue he hasn’t got a disability.
Any thoughts?
Hi Andrew, I think the problem is that the regs 26 para 2) require the circumstance in para 3) eg ‘disability’ to exist AND as per para 2b) as a result of that circumstance the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier.
It doesn’t sound like the late claim was caused specifically by the ‘disability’.
So, if the reason for the late claim is duff info from the DWP/ jobcentre etc, then compensation or complaint to Ombudsman/ MP looks the options.
Clearly a lack of justice within the Regs!
Yes, after a more leisurely read I can see the link. However, if the DWP’s misinformation caused an already mentally confused person to make a mistake….? Failing that i will certainly complain…ah, I already have!!!
However, if the DWP’s misinformation caused an already mentally confused person to make a mistake….?
To my mind, when the regs talk about things happening “as a result of” circumstances, they set a question of causation - so but for C’s disability, would the delay have occurred?
So if the delay is entirely attributable to disability or if disability has played any substantial role in the outcome (even if it wasn’t the main cause of the outcome), then you ought to win.
However, if the misinformation was such that anyone, disabled or not, would have ended up in the same situation or if disability played only a trivial role in the outcome, then you would expect to lose.