Closure of UC due to non-agreement of committments with LCWRA

Hello,

Would be grateful for any thoughts. We have a client who is severely mentally ill whose UC claim has just been closed as he wouldn’t accept the claimant commitments (he says he did so when he originally claimed). His UC claim has been complex, with various issues.

He got LCWRA on MR in about February this year, the request for him to agree the commitments was put on his journal in approx. January, and this was extended to June. This is clearly written in his journal, as well as a note to say that if he does not agree by 18th June, his claim will close. Client responded that he thought those that worked in the contact centre were lazy and jealous, and didn’t do anything. Claim closed.

It’s not clear what exactly the commitments were, I just tried to call UC and their systems are down. Client is very resistant to making a new claim (despite assurances that we will still be challenging the closure).

I suspect it’s not as simple as someone having LCWRA meaning that they don’t have to agree to anything, but is there anything to be done apart from MR? In addition, do linking rules exist for LCWRA, similar to ESA linking rules?

Thanks in advance, Rebecca.

But what is there for someone with LCWRA to agree to? They are free from conditionality.

I think UC need to tell you what the Commitment actually said - if it is anything other than skeletal they are surely being unreasonable.

Also, if the requirements were drawn up in January and LCWRA was only awarded in Feb, have they failed to apply that decision to the claim?

WRA 2012 s 14 -  A claimant commitment is to be prepared by the Secretary of State and may be reviewed and updated as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

And/or UC Regs 16.  A person does not have to meet the basic condition to have accepted a claimant commitment if the Secretary of State considers that—

(a)the person cannot accept a claimant commitment because they lack the capacity to do so; or
(b)there are exceptional circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect the person to accept a claimant commitment

Complain loudly!

Every claimant commitment I have seen for someone with LCWRA simply says:

I’ll use my online account to report changes to my circumstances.

Using my online account
I’ll sign in to my online account often to:

complete all activities in my to-do list
report changes to my circumstances promptly, including changes to work
If I can’t get online, I’ll report any changes by calling 0800 328 5644 (Textphone: 0800 328 1344).

This is one of those paradoxical situations that the simple UC system seems to delight in creating I fear.

Accepting a claimant commitment is a basic condition of entitlement to UC, notwithstanding as noted above the fact that having been accepted as having LCWRA means that no conditionality should be applied.

Basic conditions

(e)has accepted a claimant commitment

Are these exceptional circumstances to trigger the exemption that Andrew notes? I doubt it on the face of it to be completely honest as the situation is described. The general approach we’ve taken on similar enquiries is for people to accept the CC to get their claim up and running and then quibble or negotiate changes with their work coash subsequently, to avoid these kind of problems.

Having said all that, if the CC required, for example, him to look for work for 35 hours a week, I think you can argue that he had good reasons to be reluctant to accept the CC, in light of his LCWRA, and that he should have been offered the chance to vary the contents before signing up. Reg.15(3) is where you’d look to make that case:

(3) The Secretary of State may extend the period within which a person is required to accept a claimant commitment or an updated claimant commitment where the person requests that the Secretary of State review—

and the Secretary of State considers that the request is reasonable.

what does it mean when a UC case is closed ??? I have a cl whose case was closed as he failed the HRT but when we tried to claim esa instead we were told he has to claim UC as he was once in a full service area, but if his case is closed how does he make a new claim and what would be the point, please explain what does this concept of a closed UC case actually mean in practice. seems UC can close a case but the claimant cannot !!!

Slight digression, but couldn’t resist commenting on this:

SocSec - 11 July 2018 09:05 AM

when we tried to claim esa instead we were told he has to claim UC as he was once in a full service area

Not true if he now lives in a live service area.  Nothing to stop him claiming ESA in live service as long as he no longer has a current UC award or a pending UC claim.  ESA was abolished when he claimed UC, but only for the purpose of the claim and any award arising from it.  If there is neither a claim nor an award anymore, ESA has been “unabolished”.

thanks HB , he was in full service area less than 6 months ago and dwp are saying “UC still have an interest” and so he has been told to claim UC again and ESA have point blank refused to take a claim.  The point I make is when is a UC claim closed, I saw a letter from UC to the cl saying his claim was closed but because he still “has an interest” they are keeping him in the shrimp net

I believe that is complete nonsense.  Challenge it.

In live service there are two kinds of shrimp who get stuck in the net for one or six months:

- on UC as part of a couple within the past one month
- UC ended due to high earnings within the past six months

They can go back onto UC and cannot claim HB, IS or Tax Credits (without having checked the tortuous No 9 Order this morning I cannot swear that they are blocked from ESA-ir and JSA-ib as well, but I suspect they are).

But anyone else in live service: you can claim the full suite of legacy bens and indeed you cannot claim UC.

Am I right?  Somebody else have a go please!

Thanks HB, job centre actually file din out cl esa forms and sent them to esa but it came back refused, cl was vry very unhappy with us all , I will see if he wants to challenge it, any other comments welcome to support our position on this

This is getting interesting, and very, very annoying.

I am dealing with someone who has MH problems which hamper his understanding and ability to cope, who has no access to a computer, no computer skills, and has proved hard to support in making his claim owing to his sometimes extreme behaviour.

DWP has refused to deal with me as the client has been unable to put authorisation online - see above, he can’t (this has just been remeided by the efforts of one helpful JC+ worker - I hope)

The client’s MP took the matter up, and has been told by letter that the client has been awarded LCWRA but still needs to accept a CC or DWP will stop his money.

The response then blithely states that the claimant should log on and look at his To Do List and accept his CC or his money will stop. See above re. inability to log on, lack of understanding etc.

I also ask again what in Hades is there to put in a CC for someone with LCWRA other than very basic requirements? I’ve asked DWP for a copy, as client hasn’t seen it/can’t remember it and has no access to it anyway. Odds on that they refuse.

I ask why DWP is threatening to stop this man’s money rather than offering to support him?

I ask if DWP has applied any of its ‘vulnerable persons’ policies - but round here they refuse to even let us see said policies.

I have pointed out that SoS has discretion not to require acceptance of the CC in exceptional circumstances.

I have no answers as yet.

This one is going to ICE,  I think.

sounds like that MP needs to be doing a lot more

think about giving pro forma requesting consideration of reasonable adjustments? - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13087/

Thank you all for your thoughts - helpful.

I have just had another come in - LCWRA closed due to failing to agree to commitments!!!

The case I had has progressed some distance in the last few days - Jobcentre staff helped the claimant to agree to his claimant commitment online and helped him to add authorisation for us to act.

The CC itself requires him to advise UC of any changes to his circumstances, and to log on to the UC account when asked to. Jobcentre staff have offered to assist with this as and when needed. But the commitment still ignores completely the fact that the claimant has no IT and no IT skills. The assistance, through welcome, appears to be ad-hoc, in the face of persistent complaints, and not structured or planned from the start of the claim, as far as I can see. And there should be a section in the commitment which specifies what help is needed and who will give it.

This is a good development - but the JC staff have been helpful from the off , it is any level ‘above’ them where the obstruction begins. it has taken four months of arguing to get to this point.

I also question why a claimant commitment is required at all for someone on LCWRA, as the requirements are inevitably skeletal, and are covered by the claimant’s basic responsibilties in law to report changes. In effect, it’s just one more thing to go wrong. Why a severely disabled person should be denied payment on such a basis defies common sense.

its clearly a cultural thing within UC,  these people sit at desks looking at claimant’s journals and making decisions without ever seeing a human being , whereas job centre staff actually have to see them face to face. Hurting faceless claimants is obviously easier to do than if you have to look into their eyes and see their pain .the same thing with tax credits

Andrew - was a new claim made for your client, or could the old claim be resurrected?