Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Most incomprehensible UC decision ever?
An Easter egg to anyone who can tell me what this actually means…
“We’re writing to tell you that unfortunately you’re not entitled to Universal Credit. This is because we have decided you are a job seeker. For UC purposes you have a right to reside as a qualified person as defined in Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 but that right is excluded for the purposes of awarding UC.
This means that you are a person who must be treated as not in Great Britain. Therefore, you do not have any entitlement to UC at this time. “
Under s4(1)(c) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, you can’t get UC unless you are “in Great Britain”.
Under s4(5), Regulations can be made specifying who can and can’t be treated as being “in Great Britain”
Reg 9(1) Universal Credit Regulations 2013 provides that a person is to be treated as not being in Great Britain if they are not habitually resident in the Common Travel Area.
Regulation 9(2)then provides that a person cannot be treated as habitually resident in the Common Travel Area unless they have a right to reside in part of it.
Regulation 9(3) then provides that certain rights to reside do not count for these purposes.
Regulation 9(3)(aa) provides that one of the rights to reside which doesn’t count is a right to reside held under Regulation 14 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 but only by reason of being a “jobseeker” or “family member” of a “jobseeker”.
*take a breath*
Regulation 14(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 gives a right to reside to a “qualified person” as defined by Regulation 6.
Regulation 6(1) defines a “qualified person” as being inter alia a “jobseeker”.
Regulation 6(1) also defines a “jobseeker” as an EEA national who meets conditions A, B and (where applicable) C.
Conditions A, B and C are then subsequently defined under Regulations 6(5)-(10).
Do I get the easter egg?
—
What they are really saying though is that your client has no right to reside in the UK apart from the right of a “jobseeker” which is a dead duck for UC. He has failed the “habitual residence test”. You therefore need to figure out if he has some other right - e.g. as a worker or permanent resident - which can be used to pass it. See CPAG 18/19 at pages 1557-1588. (Don’t have the new version yet sorry).
A whole box full! I figured that might be the outcome, but couldn’t hack my way through the forest of verbiage. We’re seeing so many claims for UC turned down on habitual residence that it could be the next Windrush. Especially when migration from legacy benefits begins…
A whole box full! I figured that might be the outcome, but couldn’t hack my way through the forest of verbiage. We’re seeing so many claims for UC turned down on habitual residence that it could be the next Windrush. Especially when migration from legacy benefits begins…
“This is because we have decided you are a job seeker.” As you probably realise this seems to be the default setting / reasoning for UC HRT/R2R decisions even when a claimant clearly has a different (more favourable) status (including clients naturally migrated from legacy benefits who were previously accepting as having a R2R). No Easter eggs for the DWP!