UC Advance payment deductions

Arguably the maximum deduction rate is only 15%. That is assuming an ‘advance payment’ is a ‘payment on account’ (and if it isn’t then what is it within legislation?). Others may disagree with our analysis?

We have never succeeded in getting DWP to reduce the recovery rate using this argument - but by the time we get to that point the client has repaid the loan anyway!

As we understand it advance payments can be included in a DRO (would ask our debt specialist for the basis but is on A/L).

Hi

I have a client with a bigger problem. He had a STA on a previous UC claim when he had a partner and another was given on a new UC claim as a single person (unfortunately I have very little to go on regarding the first claim in terms of timescales). I believe he then had two budgeting advances for costs in getting to job interviews although UC have these listed as STAs too. According to his journal recovery is allowed up to 40% of his SA and I challenged by MR using some information from CPAG’s website:

“Mandatory Reconsideration Request

On 5th March you told me that you can take the maximum of 40% from my Standard Allowance to repay my short-term advances. This is legally incorrect.

The maximum rates of recovery of short-term advances are laid down in Regulation 11 of the Social Security (Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 2013 which provides that the recovery rates are:
•15% of your standard allowance if there is no earned income, or
•25% of your standard allowance if there is earned income
•40% of your standard allowance where there is fraud or deception or there is repayment of a hardship payment

I understand that you may have guidance to recover to a maximum of 40% of my standard allowance but Regulations take legal precedence over any guidance. As there are no fraud or hardship repayment issues, please reconsider your decision and reduce the recovery rate to 15% of my standard allowance.”

UC response is:

I have looked at your Mandatory Reconsideration and taken advice regarding your request.
Unfortunately, as this is about policy we are unable to forward it to a decision maker for consideration. The only way policy can be addressed is through your local MP.
Kind regards,

I’m trying to decide what to do next as MPs seem to be occupied with something else at present.

Any ideas?

Thanks

Phil

PhilS - 27 March 2019 09:12 AM

I have looked at your Mandatory Reconsideration and taken advice regarding your request.
Unfortunately, as this is about policy we are unable to forward it to a decision maker for consideration. The only way policy can be addressed is through your local MP.
Kind regards,

Sorry but that is just utter nonsense and is unacceptable as a response.

Even if your request is legally baseless, misguided and amounts to a challenge to a policy decision which a DM could not possibly go behind, your client is entitled to pursue it and have a decision made on it.

You have a number of options, e.g.:
(1) Submit an appeal to the FtT arguing that the case manager’s message is a refusal to revise and therefore the MR process as such has been completed.
(2) Complain
(3) Look at threatening JR : http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/judicial-review-project

Thanks Elliot

Your thoughts and mine were the same, I’m about to action point 1 and had been considering point 3.

In the meantime, my client has so little to live on.

Phil

Having had a couple of UC appeals accepted recently after some back & forth convincing HMCTS that UC had in fact revised/refused to revise, I would recommend taking screenshots of the message in the UC account, ensuring you can see the client’s name, NINO etc. + also enclosing a copy of the original decision with the appeal.

Having received these extra bits from us, letters from HMCTS confirming appeal lodged followed quickly.

& it might not be relevant but colleagues report that contacting DWP debt management and explaining repayments are unaffordable has led to immediate reductions in rates of deduction . However they note that debt management have no control over STBAs (this is responsibility of UC case manager apparently) so suspect STAs might be being treated in the same way…