HB o/p recovered from UC - HB/UC procedure

Has anyone been able to establsih the correct procedure / can point us to the relevant procudural documents etc?

client is having HB o/p recovered from UC. The o/p is alleged to have occured because HB contiued in payment after UC claim made (‘overlaping payment’).

Relevant LA now say there was no such o/p. UC say LA responded to a standard UC enquiry (a PDF doc?) at the start of the UC claim notifying the HB o/p and have not sent a further notification that there was in fact no o/p.

we suspect that LA did initially raise an overpayment for the HB/UC ‘overlap’ payment but then cancelled it but did not then notify UC of the change.

The blame game has now started with neither UC/LA/DWP debt management taking reponsibility for terminating deduction from clients UC (MR now made etc). Without access to the relevant document resolving this ‘simple issue’ is proving frustrating and time consuming!!

Depends when it happened.

Original live service doc was an Excel spreadsheet called a UC(MGP1(LA).  Council used it to tell DWP about UC-generated overpayments; legacy overpayments that had nothing to do with UC; and any fraud “strike” sanctions in progress at the point of migration.  It was then renamed UC413 and continues by that name in remaining live service areas - has one less information field than the original UCMGP1(LA) (does not collect legacy non UC-related overpayments).  Still an Excel spreadsheet.  Both returned to DWP by secure email, which means that someone in the Council should have that in their sent history.  Most Councils only had a small number of people dealing with them, so not many sent boxes to check.  In addition sent emails with attachments are usually stored in the claimant’s EDM docs history (that is at the Council’s end).

In full service, the form has reverted to its original name UCMGP1(LA).  It only collects info about overpayments caused by migration.  No longer a spreadsheet, it is now supposed to be returned by clicking a button on the form itself, but councils tell me this feature does not work and they normally send an email back to DWP containing the required info - again should be retrievable from someone’s sent items history.

Thanx Anorak - mine of info as ever! It is under full service due to ‘natural migration’ (ESA ‘found fit’).

Is there a seperate form / protocol for LA to advise there was no overpayment / decision revised?

Good question.  I don’t know whether they can amend and resend the UC MGP1, or whether this new full service one is a click once and it’s gone thing.  Might have to persuade them to email their partnership contact.

Having now spoken to UC & LA again it appears there was an ‘overlapping payment’ (although the period may still be in dispute). UC have now uploaded a copy of the UCMGP1 to clients journal.

I think the problem is partly that UC & LA use different terminology that is meaningless to claimants (and this advisers until he becomes familiar with it / processes!). Client is tenant of the same LA.

What happened is LA raised an overpayment invoice for the ‘overlapping payment’ but this was then changed to show nil outstanding (due to UCMGP1?). It would also appears they then ‘removed’ the ‘overlapping payment’ of HB from the rent account. It remains unclear if LA also issued a HB decision concerning this ‘overpayment’ / ‘overlapping payment’ to the claimant.

What is now happening in this case is UC are recovering the ‘overlapping payment’ from claimants UC as a ‘DWP benefit recovery’ at £40.72 per assessment period (client also has deduction for repayment of a UC advance which makes total deductions of 40% of personal allowance).

However my understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the ‘overlapping payment’ of HB should have been ‘recovered’ as ‘unearned income’ from the releavant (1st) assessment period under UC(TP)Reg 10 and not as an ‘overpayment’ under SSAA s71 (if that is the actual basis UC are using?).

The UCMGP1 was clearly received at UC in time for this to have been done in respect of the claimants first assessement period. My reading would be that the ‘overlapping payment’ (£247.67) should have been taken into account as ‘unearned income’ in this first assessment period and UC entitlement reduced accordingly. In practice that was not done and client received her full entitlement minus only deduction of advance payment and housing costs an APA (which UC say was set up in time to apply for the 1st assessment period - although council has not yet received any payment from UC under the APA in practice and has commenced rent arrears action!).

But the question then remains - if Reg 10 had been applied my understanding is that the sum would have been taken into account as ‘unearned income’. It would not be deducted from the ‘housing costs’ paid direct to the council under the APA. So if the ‘overlapping payment’ of HB is not ‘removed’ from the rent account there would be duplicate payments credited to the rent account for the same period (HB ‘overlapping payment’ & UC housing costs).

In practice if Reg 10 had been applied correctly my client would have been even worse off because entitlement for the first assessment period £1,036.81would have been reduced by £247.67 + direct payment of housing costs under the APA + recovery of the advance payment (leaving £260.82 for client & 1 child).

So recovery of an ‘overlapping payment’ of HB as an overpayment over several assessement periods rather than as ‘unearned income’ in the first (and any subsequent if required) assessement period is arguably better for claimants.

I have in the back of my mind that there is a tread on recovery of tax credit ‘overlapping payments’ from UC - but I can’t find it.

Perhaps someone out there is writing an artical for Adviser or CPAG’s WRB about the recovery of ‘overlapping payments’ of legacy benefits from UC??

The way I read Reg 10, the HB overpayment does not have to be used as income for UC purposes in “real time” as part of the first decision in respect of that AP: I think it can be done later, in effect leading to an overpayment of UC.  This will happen where the Council does not send off the MGP form until after the first UC payment has been made, or they do but DWP delay dealing with it at their end. 

Any HB overpayment that is used as income for UC purposes is not recoverable as an HB overpayment, which is why local authorities are supposed to classify them as DWP official error (an administrative status rather than a description of what happened): it guarantees that no action will be taken at the LA end beyond sending off the MGP.  In this case, it seems the Council at first tried to deal with it as a conventional HB overpayment and then changed their minds when they realised it was actually a migration overpayment/overlapping payment/Reg 10 payment/whatever name you want to give it.  I think “migration overpayment” is catching on as a piece of administrative terminology within local authorities, but maybe “overlapping payment” will overtake it.

As far as notification goes, the Council does not need to provide the claimant with an overpayment decision notice for overlapping payments (or whatever you want to call them) because they are not recoverable as HB overpayments: HB Schedule 9.  But the Council does need to notify the claimant of the superseding decision that s/he is no longer entitled to HB from a certain date and it would be polite (but not a statutory requirement) to explain in that letter what will happen to the overlapping payment.  If I was doing it I would add a paragraph to the standard letter along these lines: “we have paid some HB beyond the date your HB entitlement ended.  We have told DWP about this and they will adjust your Universal Credit to take account of the fact that you have received some HB - so you will get less UC for the month in which the HB was paid.  If they get a chance to do it in time, DWP will adjust your first payment of UC by deducting the HB you received in the same month.  If not, they will recover it by instalments from future UC payments.”

I can see how in the case of a Council tenant with UC “managed payments” this can result in a series of baffling credits and debits as the same money goes on and off the rent account.

I have now received a copy of the LA letter which is written in the terms you quote. But not the terminology used by LA/UC in telephone / Journal communication to date!

The UCMGP1 uses the term ‘overlapping HB payment’. Why have one term when 3 will do?

Another benefit / process simplification (and I remember the transfer of rent additions from Supp Ben to HB and the chaos that caused)!

Hi I’m hoping this issue is similar so have tagged it on the end here.

I have a client whose HB has continued in payment in to Jan despite UC being paid from November.  I work for the LA and notified HB via a DP application that the UC claim had been made.  Also, they did receive a letter notifying them of the UC claim apparently but no stop notice.  They are saying that there will be an ‘overpayment/overlapping payment’ that will be taken off a UC payment, presumably in the assessment period in which UC are notified by HB.  They have suspended the HB claim now.

I wanted to argue that the HB should have been stopped or suspended at the time of the claim since I (working for the LA and supporting the UC claimant) should have ensured that and also HB should have suspended when they received official notification of the claim despite no stop notice arriving. 

Can I request reconsideration of the HB decision that its a recoverable overpayment? or does it have the funny overlapping payment status and become a recoverable UC debt no matter what?  In which case can i have any influence over whether it comes off in one chunk or as installments?

Clara- the issue is that:

1. It is a payment of HB made to the claimant where (a) claimant was not entitled to it (as claim to UC should have terminated HB award) and (b) it was for a UC assessment period.

2. As such then, it counts as income for UC for the a/p in which it was paid. If UC was not adjusted at the time then there is an o/p of UC- all of which are recoverable although discretion not to do so.

3. This is the case regardless of whether it would have been recoverable under HB regs. (ie if an official error overpayment).

This is all reg 10 of the UC(TP) Regs 2014 (SI No. 1230).

Nasty business really.

[edited for typo- their/there…]

Thanks Martin, as I feared.

Hi folks

Did any of your challenges or complaints regarding overpaid legacy benefits (leading to overpayments of UC) come to a conclusion?

My client claimed UC and ESAir continued; she received 3 payments of ESA, across two UC APs, which has led to an OP of UC. I don’t understand the figure they’re quoting for the UC OP (appears too low) but hope to get some more info from the client.

Is my only route to challenge this to argue that DWP should use their discretion to write off the OP?

Our partnership manager said in an email that ‘Any claim to UC will trigger a migration stop notice to the six legacy benefits to close and integrate into the new UC system.’ Clearly - this doesn’t happen in practice for ESA.

It would be advantageous for it to be treated as an OP of ESA, but I see from the discussion above it appears that TP reg 10 3 (a) prevents it from being treated as such.

Edit: Sorry realised this should have gon on this thread instead:
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11921/

We have a client with severe MH issues who I suspect has claimed UC and has fallen into the mess created by a previous OP that was cleared but not updated by the LA.

For such vulnerable people I seem to recall a piece of case law somewhere (that I can’t seem to find now) which prevents DWP from making decisions that might put a vulnerable person at risk..

If anyone can point me to this case law, that would be great