Dancing to UC tunes

From CH/0025/2018…

“E. How the local authority and the First-tier Tribunal went wrong
14. It follows that the local authority was wrong to rely on provisions relating to entitlement in order to terminate the claimant’s award when what was in dispute was the method of payment. What had happened was that the claimant had not provided the information necessary for his award to be paid by the process that the local authority had decided to use.

15. The tribunal confirmed the local authority’s decision, saying of regulation 86 that the local authority was ‘perfectly entitled to decide to change the method of payment of HB and that in order to do so it requires claimants to provide the details of a bank account into which the benefit can be paid.’ The tribunal was right that the local authority was entitled to change the method of payment and ask the claimant to provide the information necessary to implement that change. But it was wrong to decide that the local authority was entitled to do that under regulation 86 and then to terminate the award…

17. It follows that the local authority had no power to terminate the claimant’s award of housing benefit on account of his failure to provide the information requested. I have re-made the tribunal’s decision to that effect and have done so without the need for an oral hearing.”

Judge Jacobs then describes the outcome as an ‘impasse’ because of the lack of agreement about how the HB should be paid. But I wonder if this case shines any kind of useful light on UC? They seem very reluctant to allow third party bank accounts for example, let alone happily tolerate third party entries on journals. The method and constrictions of the UC delivery system continue to define the UC product itself.