Live Service to Full Service - the information gap

Thanks Billy - i’ll flag that up via stakeholders…

They’ve come back to say it is best to raise issues like this via local partnership manager who should be able to sort it out - let me know if this doesn’t work…

Agree the info gap is certainly there on LS - FS transfer - my client has to go and provide ID and proof of address, re-confirm rent liability, and provide duplicate sick note - all of this given previously to UC under her LS claim.
Why can’t UC FS just look at the info on UC LS ? It’s madness.

In addition, this client has repeatedly tried to claim NS ESA, even to the extent of posting back recorded delivery a NS ESA claim form (which she has proof that it was signed for). Apparently she should have held onto the form and rung to request an appointment instead. She now has a fresh NS ESA form and for NS ESA will have to provide ID docs at a JCP appt - I’m hoping we can do the ID appt for UC FS and NS ESA at the same time, but I have very little doubt that it will happen this smoothly ... She has also been sent an ESA50 and a UC50! Someone, somewhere, must have her NS ESA claim but ESA deny knowledge and so do UC. Kafkaesque

Daphne - 29 August 2018 04:28 PM

They’ve come back to say it is best to raise issues like this via local partnership manager who should be able to sort it out - let me know if this doesn’t work…

It’s certainly a creative idea and an impressive bit of delegation- asking the local partnership manager, if she wouldn’t mind awfully, to sort out the UC IT system. When you get the time mind, no rush dear, we’ve already been at this for 5 years after all…

I’ve come across this as well. There was a team at one point that could look at both systems. Obviously, ideally they would all be able to do this. My recollection is that team was set up to deal with problems when administration of awards moved from live to full service. Perhaps others have details?

On a related note- does anyone have examples of the letters sent to claimants who have awards made whilst living in live service area that then becomes full service- letters in which they asked to do a new “claim” under the full service etc?

I would dearly love to see a sample copy and hear any stories about what happens people if they don’t then rush off to acquaint themselves with the digital service journal etc.

Thanks.

Martin

Martin Williams - 26 September 2018 03:52 PM

I’ve come across this as well. There was a team at one point that could look at both systems. Obviously, ideally they would all be able to do this. My recollection is that team was set up to deal with problems when administration of awards moved from live to full service. Perhaps others have details?

On a related note- does anyone have examples of the letters sent to claimants who have awards made whilst living in live service area that then becomes full service- letters in which they asked to do a new “claim” under the full service etc?

I would dearly love to see a sample copy and hear any stories about what happens people if they don’t then rush off to acquaint themselves with the digital service journal etc.

Thanks.

Martin

See attached paperwork, claim then closed it appears because client did not book an appointment, MR submitted.

Daphne - 29 August 2018 04:28 PM

They’ve come back to say it is best to raise issues like this via local partnership manager who should be able to sort it out - let me know if this doesn’t work…

We have a former LSFS client who has been moved to FSUC. He was sanctioned under LSFS in 2017 but won his appeal in June. Because his LS claim is closed we have made no progress with FSUC or local partnership team to make the payment (apparently no one in the FSUC service centre is authorised to make payments due under a LS claim - different IT system etc etc - heads and brick walls).

We are about to serve notice before action on the DWP solicitor!

No it doesn’t work!

See attached paperwork, claim then closed it appears because client did not book an appointment, MR submitted.

Looking at this and then thinking of the suspension decision etc:

1. It is not clear that the information they want the claimant to provide is needed for purposes of considering whether to revise or supersede (in which case is not a request for information validly made under reg 38(2) of the UC etc. (C&P) Regs.

2. Which would mean no suspension under reg 45(6) of the UC etc (D&A) Regs could take place after 14 days.

3. The letter does not actually tell the claimant what information is needed- it simply says they want the information that the online form is going to ask them to provide without telling them what that information will be- it is not clear to me that this complies with the requirement to notify claimant of provisions of reg 45 at all (see on this VW v LB Hackney (HB) [2014] UKUT 227 (AAC)) so any subsequent termination decision is wrong.

4. Also letter does not inform of possibility of extension of time etc. so termination would fail on that basis.

———————-

How the DWP have managed to ignore a consistent line of authority from the UT in designing that letter is beyond me. I am not sure they asked a lawyer….

Martin Williams - 26 September 2018 05:29 PM

See attached paperwork, claim then closed it appears because client did not book an appointment, MR submitted.

Looking at this and then thinking of the suspension decision etc:

1. It is not clear that the information they want the claimant to provide is needed for purposes of considering whether to revise or supersede (in which case is not a request for information validly made under reg 38(2) of the UC etc. (C&P) Regs.

2. Which would mean no suspension under reg 45(6) of the UC etc (D&A) Regs could take place after 14 days.

3. The letter does not actually tell the claimant what information is needed- it simply says they want the information that the online form is going to ask them to provide without telling them what that information will be- it is not clear to me that this complies with the requirement to notify claimant of provisions of reg 45 at all (see on this VW v LB Hackney (HB) [2014] UKUT 227 (AAC)) so any subsequent termination decision is wrong.

4. Also letter does not inform of possibility of extension of time etc. so termination would fail on that basis.

———————-

How the DWP have managed to ignore a consistent line of authority from the UT in designing that letter is beyond me. I am not sure they asked a lawyer….

It gets worse - client has health issues that suggested he needed support with the process, and it appears he underwent a WCA (outcome unknown, process began during live service claim 6 - 7 months before the switch from live to full service letter), just prior to the closure of the claim.

Martin Williams - 26 September 2018 05:29 PM

See attached paperwork, claim then closed it appears because client did not book an appointment, MR submitted.

Looking at this and then thinking of the suspension decision etc:

1. It is not clear that the information they want the claimant to provide is needed for purposes of considering whether to revise or supersede (in which case is not a request for information validly made under reg 38(2) of the UC etc. (C&P) Regs.

2. Which would mean no suspension under reg 45(6) of the UC etc (D&A) Regs could take place after 14 days.

3. The letter does not actually tell the claimant what information is needed- it simply says they want the information that the online form is going to ask them to provide without telling them what that information will be- it is not clear to me that this complies with the requirement to notify claimant of provisions of reg 45 at all (see on this VW v LB Hackney (HB) [2014] UKUT 227 (AAC)) so any subsequent termination decision is wrong.

4. Also letter does not inform of possibility of extension of time etc. so termination would fail on that basis.

———————-

How the DWP have managed to ignore a consistent line of authority from the UT in designing that letter is beyond me. I am not sure they asked a lawyer….

Thanks for taking the time with the above Martin!

FOI response to Martin’s request for details of legal basis for live service to full service closure decisions (declined) and for copies of UC492 and UC500 leaflets/letters (provided).

stuart - 29 October 2018 12:58 PM

FOI response to Martin’s request for details of legal basis for live service to full service closure decisions (declined) and for copies of UC492 and UC500 leaflets/letters (provided).

So because Martin asked “what is the legal basis” for closing claims, they say they haven’t got to reply, whereas if he’d have asked something like “please provide information setting out the legal basis” they’d have to provide it? Sounds to me like they don’t know and don’t care.

I think trying to winkle what they see as the legal basis for a particular DWP procedure out of them via FOI is tricky….

Nice to be sent links to several sets of regulations though. I was wondering how to find them online….

Seriously though: if anyone has any of these cases going to appeal (where claimant’s UC award ended because they did not complete the online application to transition from live to full service) please let us know.

Getting one of these to the UT would be worthwhile.