Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Moved within same LA - forced on to UC, this is DWP’s response to complaint
Client moves house within same LA area- DWP tell her that she must claim UC.
I make a complaint - this should not have been a UC claim, client has lost money owing to lack of TP, please compensate.
This is DWP’s reply, for the second time of asking.
Complaint escalated, fists beaten in rage and frustration against the side of a filing cabinet.
[ Edited: 10 Apr 2018 at 01:03 pm by Andrew Dutton ]
I feel your pain Andrew - I will raise via stakeholders too…
I thought this was case law, but not quite?
“
Leigh Day have also acted on behalf of an individual who was transferred onto Universal Credit from Employment & Support Allowance and Housing Benefit after he moved to another home within the same London borough.
He was automatically transferred to Universal Credit, which disentitled him from claiming Employment & Support Allowance and Housing Benefit resulting in a significant reduction to his benefit entitlement.
Lawyers from the human rights team at Leigh Day discovered that he was not actually required to transfer to Universal Credit and benefits advisers had not properly understood and/or engaged with the regulations.
The regulations state that a change of address within a full-service Universal Credit area can be dealt with by simply recording a change of circumstances; it does not require the recipient to make a new claim for Universal Credit.
The man was informed that he was required to claim Universal Credit before he would be able to move to his new tenancy, which was due to start in three days’ time.
Leigh Day threatened legal action against the decision, following the threat of a judicial review the Department of Work and Pensions agreed to treat the Universal Credit claim as never having been made, with an additional commitment that they will reinstate his Employment & Support Allowance claim.
After further delay, the local authority also agreed to reinstate his Housing Benefit claim; no apology has been provided.
David, I think the distinction is that they accepted fault in the Leigh Day case.
In this case they are, untenably, suggesting that nothing went wrong - so why should they offer a remedy?
and this my friends is what we have to deal with on a daily basis no wonder all us advisors are grey and living on the edge of despair :) I hope you get a resolution
I take it they already had HB in payment at the old address before they moved to the new address?
I take it they already had HB in payment at the old address before they moved to the new address?
Yes, there is no new claim here. What depresses me is that this is formal written advice from Complaints Resolution, and it is the second time they have said it.
Complaints resolution are fantastic. I had a PIP case recently where I pointed out that the extra 2 points I was asking for on daily living were not to point too fine a point on it, somewhat obvious. CR maintained that the appeal submission had been reviewed and they were very comfortable maintaining their line that I was requesting something “outwith” the legislation. Award decision was waiting for me on the table as we entered the appeal hearing. Sadly no P.O. there to take a hit. Duscussed with client and I wrote to CR to point out the error of their ways. They have no record of the original complaint.
Yes, there is no new claim here. What depresses me is that this is formal written advice from Complaints Resolution, and it is the second time they have said it.
Andrew - can I just check as stakeholders are asking me - is this a response from the central complaints resolution team - did you do it via the links/numbers on this page - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about/complaints-procedure#who-to-contact-1
Or something else?
It’s a written reply from Central England CRT.
I used my usual route, which is to email CRT with the inital query (an arrangement reached two or three years ago as I was complaining so often about DWP offices not replying to letters) and I then received reponses in writing dealing with parts of the query (claimant had been put through WCA when she didn’t need to be and then sent UC50 on multiple occasions for some reason) but upholding the claim that it was correct to make her claim UC.
I wrote again to point out this was incorrect, and received the letter attached to this thread.
Following a request, I have removed the text of the DWP’s letter from this thread.
To maintain the coherence of the thread (inasmuch as anything I say is coherent in any way) the argument is about whether a move within the same LA area is a trigger for a full service UC claim. DWP insists that it is, and I say that it isn’t. I consider that I am completely correct in this matter (which again isn’t that common)
For the sake of clarity, having described my contacts with CRT above, I wish to add (and I wish I had earlier) that I have always found them swift, courteous, friendly and accurate in their responses even when we disagree about the interpretation of social security law.
However, where UC is concerned, I have found things to be much slower, and while responses have still been courteous and friendly, they have frequently lacked the accustomed accuracy.
I do not consider this to be a complaint against CRT. I consider it to be a further manifestation of the confusion sown by UC, the failure of DWP at a high level to understand and/or admit to the problems that it is causing, and a further sign that UC is not at all ready to be rolled out nation-wide.