Not eligible for Universal Credit and loss of Tax Credits or Housing Benefit
I have a number of cases where HMRC and the local authority do not understand regulation 8
of the UC (Transitional Provisions) Regs 2014.
Does anyone have favourable Tribunal decisions reinstating the legacy benefits that they could
send to me at Richmond CAB?
I now have a favourable decision in one of my Tax Credits cases.
Welfare rights - Greenwich Council
Total Posts: 118
Joined: 23 November 2018
Any chance you could share a redacted version? We had one TC refusal ‘because you live in a full service UC area’ which we’re taking to tribunal. Did it have to go to tribunal? We’ve had more success with housing benefit because we’re able to advocate more effectively on a local level.
Guys, would anyone mind sharing a template or skeleton letter to the HMRC/LA regarding reinstating legacy benefits in cases of clients found ineligible for UC?
90% of my casework currently is about EEA nationals failing HRT, and whilst MR process is often lengthy, these clients, often with young children, are completely destitute.
I would also appreciate very much a redacted Tribunal decision.
Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project
Total Posts: 113
Joined: 22 May 2016
I think this is discussed in some detail here,
What constitutes a UC claim being made. And if ‘not in Great Britain’, has a claim been made? Whether or not stop notices have been sent out.
Thanks David, I have seen that thread, it is indeed very helpful. I was hoping however that someone with skills and knowledge much better than mine has composed a letter based on those arguments. I might be accused of being lazy - but to be honest I would rather be accused of being cautious, by not wanting to cobble up something silly.
I attach the relevant extract from my recent appeal submission
on the point. I have included reference to HMRC v LH which
HMRC and local authorities invariably cite (wrongly) in their
The Tribunal decision and Statement of Reasons followed the same
- Submission_on_Regulation_8(1).docx (File Size: 33KB - Downloads: 732)
Cool, thanks Mike!
I have tried to persuade a certain LA’s HB department, using template as provided by Mike (thank you Mike). My LA colleague consulted DWP.
Below is the DWP Housing Policy Division’s response.
I’d appreciate your comments.
[ Edited: 4 Jun 2019 at 03:46 pm by Jo_Smith ]
“For Secretary of State to be “satisfied” that a basic condition is met, a lower evidential threshold is required than when Secretary of State “determines” (or “decides”) that this is the case. There is a deliberate difference in language in this regulation (i.e. “is satisfied” rather than “determines”) and it is possible for Secretary of State to be satisfied, to the lower evidential standard, that the basic condition of being “in Great Britain” has been met and issue a Stop Notice to end the claimant’s legacy benefits before a final determination is made, to the higher ‘more likely than not’ standard, that the claimant indeed is “in Great Britain” (having the right to reside and, as applicable, being habitually resident).
Local authorities need not investigate further the validity of a Stop Notice when they receive it. By issuing it, DWP is confirming that Secretary of State is satisfied that the basic conditions are met and that Regulation 8 is engaged for that claimant. Local authorities will therefore be acting entirely legally in ending the HB award when they receive the Stop Notice [as confirmed in the Upper Tribunal case CTC/1276/2018].”
Total Posts: 1744
Joined: 14 July 2014
Jo_Smith - 04 June 2019 03:41 PM
I’d appreciate your comments.
Well the response doesn’t make sense.
I can’t be “satisfied” that X is true whilst “determining” that it is false.
The jury must be “satisfied” of guilt to “determine” that the defendant is guilty.
If the DWP had intended the meaning set out in the response, then it would have been appropriate to draft the regulation in terms that “the SSWP must consider that the claimant appears to meet the conditions of entitlement” or something of that nature.
Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow
Total Posts: 1222
Joined: 13 April 2016
a judge can be satisfied AND find as a fact that X is so
the DWP can’t use satisfied in any lesser sense when making a decision.
if a decision maker is satisfied that X is so, then his/her decision is that X is so; such a decision should carry reasons and be appealable (and error of law not to give reasons).
entirely possible, as well, bearing i mind that these things are “balance of probabilities” not “beyond all reasonable doubt” for two separate decision makers to come to wholly different conclusions on the same set of facts (unless, of course, statute provides that the first decision is conclusive for all purposes ... in which case, reasons, appeal rights)
Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London
Total Posts: 2297
Joined: 12 March 2013
Apart from the logical fallacy in that DWP response, it is in any case factually inaccurate. The whole point about the residence condition argument is that the stop notice is issued by machine before any human in the DWP has applied any scrutiny whatsoever to the question of residence. The Secretary of State has not determined, is not satisfied, has no inkling of a clue as to whether that basic condition is met at the point when the stop notice is generated.
Does anyone know if the DWP is appealing to the UTT on any of these cases?
If so, what stage has the appeal reached?