Ongoing childcare costs, "reporting" and interpretation of reg. 33?

My understanding is that they have to be reported in each and every relevant assessment period, though there might then some flexibility on when those reports need to be evidenced. E.g. I think JCP here have said it can be ok to enter a note on the journal in July saying what your July childcare costs are, and then during August when you can get to the jobcentre hand in the July supporting evidence for scanning to the journal.

Whether it would be acceptable to DWP for your July journal note to say “... and these costs will be the case for every month going forward, until further notice from me”, I have no idea.

Reg. 33 of the UC Regs, as it applies in full service, reads as follows;

33 - (1) The childcare costs condition is met in respect of an assessment period if -

      (za) the claimant has paid charges for relevant childcare that are attributable to that assessment period  
          (see regulation 34A) and those charges have been reported to the Secretary of State before the end
          of that assessment period;

The wording of the regulation refers to ‘reporting’ charges’, but does not specify what reporting charges actually means? Is it the client communicating or verifying that they have paid ‘charges’ ?

I appreciate they will be expected to provide proof at some point, but i’m wondering if it would add any mileage to your arguments.

The guidance talks about verification i.e. providing proof, but does the wording of the relevant regs?

I know the guidance is in Resources on Rightsnet, but have attached for convenience.

Thanks.

The guidance says;

If a claimant qualifies for help with childcare costs they must report the actual costs paid in each assessment period, as soon as they pay them, even if the costs haven’t changed from the previous month.

But it’s only guidance - i.e. the DWP’s interpretation of the regulation - and I still think it is arguable that I have ‘reported’ before the end of an assessment period where I have done so in the previous assessment period and nothing has changed.  As you say, the regulations do not define what ‘reporting’ consists of (* presumably it requires nothing more than an entry on the journal saying “I have paid x amount childcare costs” - or a phone call to the same effect) and I have found nothing that makes it clear to claimants that reporting must be done in each assessment period.

* - the guidance makes it apparent that the DWP considers ‘reporting’ and verification’ of childcare costs to be two different things. Verification is only required if requested by the DWP and then the claimant has a month to supply the evidence.

I don’t agree that reporting childcare charges once does deal with on-going disclosure unfortunately.

the claimant has paid charges for relevant childcare that are attributable to that assessment period (see regulation 34A) and those charges have been reported to the Secretary of State before the end of that assessment period;”

The claimant must have paid charges for childcare in the assessment period in question, and those charges have been reported to SoS before the end of the same assessment period.

If I pay c/c in month 1 and report these, I have fulfilled both parts of (za). If in month 2, I pay the same charges but don’t report them, I have fulfilled the first strand but for the assessment period of month 2, I have not reported them again during month 2.

The fact that I previously reported the same amount of payment in month 1 cannot satisfy the secondary requirement to have reported those changes before the end of the month 2 assessment period.

Imvho of course. The whole thing is absurd mind you, expecting people to pay upfront and then rely on the fact of having them repaid afterwards, with all of the uncertainty of maintaining a UC claim is ridiculous.

The DWP are reading the sentence as a compound - i.e.

the claimant has paid charges for relevant childcare that are attributable to that assessment period (see regulation 34A) and those [paid] charges have [then] been reported to the Secretary of State before the end of that assessment period;

I suppose you could argue that the correct reading imposes two independent requirements:

the claimant has:
(a) paid charges for relevant childcare that are attributable to that assessment period (see regulation 34A); and
(b) those charges have been reported to the Secretary of State before the end of that assessment period

If that reading was correct, then perhaps your client could complete requirement (b) in July by reporting enough info for the DWP to work out entitlement in subsequent APs (e.g. I pay £100 in arrears every Friday until further notice) and then complete requirement (a) by actually making those payments.

Not sure if that’s a runner or not.

The other thing that springs to mind is whether the DWP have properly addressed the Social Security Act, whether they have grounds for supersession and the like. It’s usually worth thinking about as the DWP seem to have forgotten that the Act exists.

Thanks both. I can see where Paul is coming from, but absent any definition in the regs of what constitutes ‘reporting’ I still think it is open to interpretation. The guidance makes clear that the DWP considers ‘reporting’ and ‘verification’ (i.e. supplying evidence that the costs have in fact been paid) to be two different things.

What is required? Two things;

1) I must have actually paid the costs - but I am not required to provide any evidence of this unless it is actually requested.

2) I must have reported the costs before the end of the assessment period. If reporting does not mean either providing evidence of what the costs were or evidence that I have in fact paid, what is left? It can only mean telling the DWP how much I’ve paid before the end of the assessment period. When did I tell them? - In the previous assessment period, which is certainly before the end of the current assessment period.

The SSA and grounds for supersession is worth an argument too, definitely.

If the reporting is done in advance, how does DWP know that the requirement for the charges to have been paid is satisfied?  I cannot get past that: I think the only workable reading of the reg is that payment and reporting have to take place in that order.

I also think the ground for supersession under the 1998 Act is made out: if you did report child care charges last month, and so qualified for that element in your max UC, but did not report them this month, there has been a change of circumstance in that you have ceased to be eligible for a child care element.

It is ridiculous, but I think that’s how it is.

HB Anorak - 30 January 2018 05:04 PM

If the reporting is done in advance, how does DWP know that the requirement for the charges to have been paid is satisfied?  I cannot get past that: I think the only workable reading of the reg is that payment and reporting have to take place in that order.

I know it is splitting hairs, but it doesn’t ‘know’ anything in the strict sense of the word when the claimant reports - because reporting appears to require no more than a telephone call or UC journal entry that simply asserts payment has been made. Verification or evidence of payment is something else.

If I weren’t involved in the case I’d tend to agree with those arguing against me. But the issue is that the client wasn’t asked to make any declaration at the time and the UC awards were so inscrutable it was at first difficult to tell that a child element had not been awarded (it was awarded for one child but not the other, then for the other but not the first) - when the client telephoned to query what was happening she was told that if UC required further information/evidence she would be notified and by the time this happened it was too late. I may have some argument under the late reporting provisions but want to have more than that if possible….  :(

past caring - 30 January 2018 05:40 PM

HB Anorak - 30 January 2018 05:04 PM

If the reporting is done in advance, how does DWP know that the requirement for the charges to have been paid is satisfied?  I cannot get past that: I think the only workable reading of the reg is that payment and reporting have to take place in that order.

I know it is splitting hairs, but it doesn’t ‘know’ anything in the strict sense of the word when the claimant reports - because reporting appears to require no more than a telephone call or UC journal entry that simply asserts payment has been made. Verification or evidence of payment is something else.

If I weren’t involved in the case I’d tend to agree with those arguing against me. But the issue is that the client wasn’t asked to make any declaration at the time and the UC awards were so inscrutable it was at first difficult to tell that a child element had not been awarded (it was awarded for one child but not the other, then for the other but not the first) - when the client telephoned to query what was happening she was told that if UC required further information/evidence she would be notified and by the time this happened it was too late. I may have some argument under the late reporting provisions but want to have more than that if possible….  :(

Let us know how you get on!

An update on this;

I mentioned above that the DWP guidance makes it clear that it considers ‘reporting’ and ‘verification’ to be two entirely different things;

- ‘reporting’ is making a statement - no more than an assertion - that your child care costs were a certain figure and that you have paid that certain figure.

- ‘verification’ is providing actual evidence of the same - and doing so within a month of being asked to do so.

Having now had opportunity to go through my client’s journal with a fine tooth comb, I have discovered the ‘issue’ - she in fact provided evidence of the child care costs - of what they were and what she had paid - within each assessment period. And having done so - quite reasonably in my view - she did not then complete the ‘report your childcare costs’ section in her UC journal.

I have been at this game for twenty years and I thought that I was beyond being surprised at how disingenuous DWP decision makers were prepared to be in order to get a result. But I am staggered by this. Bear in mind we are at the appeal stage with the hearing tomorrow.

Thought it worth mentioning as others might want to be alive to this underhandedness.

i raised this before but if the person gets into arrears and doesnt pay it on time can this create a never ending debt cycle?

i.e. client doesnt pay any or all of january so doesnt get compensated in feb, reduced income means short again but in terms of accounting the childcare provider notes any money paid against the outstanding balance rather than the current month so again not paid so potentially no childcare again the next month?

Absolutely - and I have clients who have had to give up work as a consequence.

But my point in the above post - I thought that it was reasonably clear - was that if, during an assessment period, I provide actual evidence of what my childcare costs are for that period and I provide, during that same assessment period, actual evidence that I have paid those costs, then I have ‘reported’.

The DWP are arguing I haven’t reported - solely because the ‘report childcare costs’ section of the journal was not completed.

past caring - 06 February 2018 01:50 PM

Absolutely - and I have clients who have had to give up work as a consequence.

But my point in the above post - I thought that it was reasonably clear - was that if, during an assessment period, I provide actual evidence of what my childcare costs are for that period and I provide, during that same assessment period, actual evidence that I have paid those costs, then I have ‘reported’.

The DWP are arguing I haven’t reported - solely because the ‘report childcare costs’ section of the journal was not completed.

similar in nonsense to the time a local council wouldnt accept my clients hb claim as it was on the wrong from despite the fact they both contained the exact same information.

past caring - 06 February 2018 01:50 PM

The DWP are arguing I haven’t reported - solely because the ‘report childcare costs’ section of the journal was not completed.

I have just had a conversation with a man who has received a £50 Civil Penalty because he reported earnings from 10 days work in his journal rather than the report a change of circs section.

It’s a bad joke.

past caring - 06 February 2018 01:50 PM

Absolutely - and I have clients who have had to give up work as a consequence.

But my point in the above post - I thought that it was reasonably clear - was that if, during an assessment period, I provide actual evidence of what my childcare costs are for that period and I provide, during that same assessment period, actual evidence that I have paid those costs, then I have ‘reported’.

The DWP are arguing I haven’t reported - solely because the ‘report childcare costs’ section of the journal was not completed.

I almost hope you lose the FtT so you can let the UT get their teeth into some of this absurd and unnecessary bureaucracy…..