“Closing” universal credit claims- the reason for refusing to make an award in 2/3 refusals of UC claims

Further to the publication of the UC stats written up here:
More than 1/4 of claims made rejected
we did an FOI request to try and decipher the reasons for refusal of UC claims

This FOI response is really interesting:

FOI Response

“For UC Full Service claims made (declared) in November 2017 from analysis carried out in March 2018:
71% of claimants were paid.
29% were closed and not paid and are made up as follows: (all shown as % of the
whole):
•8% were process compliant but closed due to non-entitlement:
Were closed for the following reasons:
4% withdrew the claim
1% failed the Habitual Residence Test;
1% had Insufficient Evidence;
1% Not Eligible or Entitled;
1% Ineligible Capital;
1% Other.
•20% were closed due to non-compliance with the process. This means they failed to meet requirements to produce evidence to support their claim or to satisfy the conditions placed on them to receive benefit, such as making oneself available for, or actively seeking a job.
The claims were closed for the following reasons:
10% Failed to book an initial interview;
6% Claimant commitment not accepted;
4% Failed to attend an interview”

So by far the biggest reason for rejecting claims was failing to book or attend an interview (half of all claims rejected), with 2 out of every 3 rejections being either for those reasons or then failing to accept the claimant commitment.

Obviously we don’t know how far those results generalise to all UC claims- about 1/2 million are rejected out of the 2 million made so if they did generalise it would imply that 1/4 of a million claims were “closed” in this way….

CPAG have previously written on the dubious legal nature of decisions refusing to make an award where claimant does not book or attend the initial interview:  Welfare Rights Bulletin Article- Closing UC Claims 

People affected can:

1. Reclaim.
2. Post note on new journal asking for a mandatory reconsideration of the decision refusing their earlier claim on the grounds outlined in the article.

As this is such a massive issue, please do send examples you encounter to CPAG’s Early Warning System-
CPAG Early Warning System

I saw a client the other week who had claimed UC but had absolutely no idea they needed to book an initial interview. Fortunately it was less than 7 days after they put in their claim so I told them to arrange their interview immediately.

Jeremy Barker - 04 May 2018 04:22 PM

I saw a client the other week who had claimed UC but had absolutely no idea they needed to book an initial interview. Fortunately it was less than 7 days after they put in their claim so I told them to arrange their interview immediately.

Jeremy- are you still seeing cases where they close if the interview is not booked after just 7 days? In the article above, we link to an earlier FOI request where they accept they have to allow at least a month (although we also say that even that is wrong and that failure to book the interview does not give a freestanding right to “close” a claim- ie refuse to make an award). If you are still seeing the 7 day “closing” stuff happening then we would like to know.

Martin

I have to say that its been a good while since I’ve seen one of these.

Elliot Kent - 04 May 2018 05:16 PM

I have to say that its been a good while since I’ve seen one of these.

Yeah- I think in general they are better at the 7 day thing but still “close” after a month if no interview booked etc. Still, the figures for closing on this reason for claims in November (if that is what they mean in the FOI response rather than “all claims down to November”) indicate things still going wrong a lot then.

Given that a closure must equate to the termination of an award, and given the clear revision and appeal rights that follow (see Martin’s article on CPAG website), how can a claimant challenge the refusal when (i) they have not been properly informed that the decision is appealable, and (ii) they cannot articulate a challenge anyway because in F/S they have by that stage been locked out of their account/journal? I realise this may well have been raised already.

Is there legally a decision at all if it has not been notified properly? Failing that, the MR/Appeal deadline clock should not be ticking unless they have been notified that the clock exists. I suggest affected F/S claimants write a letter on something called ‘paper’ to the DWP and ask for an MR, and without fear of deadlines in such cases. I reckon many FtT judges might be willing to grant appeal hearings based on such an attempt to secure an MR etc.

From talking to lots of people around the country, it seems to me that the DWP has hardly started instigating the responsibilities to UC claimants outlined in their ‘complex needs’ documents. There seems to be little or no overt sign of ‘safeguarding’. I bet you a kit kat that at least some of those facing closed awards for not booking/attending appointments will have personal circumstances that strongly suggest good reason.

The delivery system of UC (with all its frailty and inflexibility) is now defining the UC product itself. The tail is indeed wagging the dog.