ESA and prison - not entitled or not payable?

I have a claimant who spent some time in prison last year, and is still on licence. A couple of weeks ago, he was returned to prison for 5 days, and then released. I don’t know the details but im guessing that this relates to some sort of breach of conditions as he did not go to court, have a new sentence etc.  Clmnt in receipt of ESA with SDP. We are in UC full service area. He has now been told that his claim for ESA has been closed and he must claim UC. I rarely deal with this situation, but last year had a similar situation (but that was of someone on remand who then got a suspended sentence, so not the same) and he was able to make a rapid reclaim for ESA.

I have spoken to ESA to query if claim should have been closed and was told yes, and must claim UC.  The ESA regs state that the applicable amount for a claimant who is a prisoner is nil. This suggests to me that the claim is not payable, not that the claimant is not eligible. I have no idea if he has received a decision notice (and will check this) but am I fighting a losing battle? As always, grateful for any advice

thank you

If someone is in prison on remand their ESA claim is suspended - which is why your client last year was able to restart their ESA claim after they were released. Once someone has been sentenced they completely lose entitlement to most benefits when in prison - see pages 925-933 of the CPAG handbook. A return to prison while out on licence is part of a sentence so they will lose entitlement while they are inside. So unfortunately your client will now have to claim UC and will lose their SDP.

Any situation where the applicable amount is nil means there’s no entitlement to benefit.

Thanks Jeremy - I was trying too hard as usual to find a way out of a UC claim!

I had read CPAG and looked at the regs, but I also was looking at some caselaw which was raised by a previous query (CIB/3645/2002) which made a distinction between being entitlement to benefit and being able to be paid (this case was specific to periods of absence but also mentioned imprisonment) I was hoping to use an underlying entitlement argument (still qualify but nothing payable). However, on closer examination on the case in question, this was a contribution based benefit and so rules are different. I also can see that a nil app amount means nil entitlement so I guess that is the end of my argument and UC it is (unfortunately)  thank you for your help though - it did re-focus my attention

If a claimant has served a short stint & has been released, but nobody notified ESA at the time - am I right in thinking this could still be a closed period supersession? (to avoid a new UC claim).