Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Date of claim under Reg 10

‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 

David Hornell
forum member

Money matters - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 10 August 2010

Our submission was based on LA had contract with DWP to provide Digital Support, we had email records of referral to Digital Support provider. Tribunal accepted REG 10 applied . DWP have paid client I believe a weeks UC.
Prior to this appeal we had also won cases on Mand Revision as all our DS referrals were done by email.

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 2776

Joined: 14 March 2014

David Hornell - 22 July 2019 04:39 PM

Will do Daphne .

We have had a case at Appeal Tribunal under REG10 which was successful

Is that under the old service rather than Help to Claim?

David Hornell
forum member

Money matters - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 10 August 2010

Yes - prior to Help to Claim. UC full service .

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

Daphne - 22 July 2019 02:52 PM

I don’t know whether things happened differently in Scotland but Sandra McDermott from Glasgow City Council confirmed that previously the date of claim was protected there when she gave evidence to the Scottish Social Security Committee - http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=12106&i=109513&c=2192766#ScotParlOR.

The UK government does deny that it happened, as you say Jon

i gave evidence at this session and a letter was read out from the dwp/sos which clarified the difference in the current contract to the last one and why one was accepted as protected and one not.

im sure it was made available as part of the session but i cant search for it right now.

Jon (CHDCA)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1313

Joined: 16 June 2010

stevenmcavoy - 23 July 2019 03:25 PM

i gave evidence at this session and a letter was read out from the dwp/sos which clarified the difference in the current contract to the last one and why one was accepted as protected and one not.

im sure it was made available as part of the session but i cant search for it right now.

Would be interesting to see that, as it’s not what they’ve been saying elsewhere.

You’re not by any chance thinking of this are you?

I put on record that I have had correspondence with your chief executive officer, Derek Mitchell, on this. He confirms my reading that protected date of claim has been lost but outlines the various platforms by which claimants can have their date of claim protected, although it will not necessarily be from the date they walk in the door. He then talks about significant issues with universal credit that Citizens Advice continues to have. I will pass that letter to the clerks and make it publicly available on our web page if that is appropriate.

That’s a letter from Citizens Advice Scotland, not from DWP.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

Jon (CHDCA) - 24 July 2019 02:11 PM
stevenmcavoy - 23 July 2019 03:25 PM

i gave evidence at this session and a letter was read out from the dwp/sos which clarified the difference in the current contract to the last one and why one was accepted as protected and one not.

im sure it was made available as part of the session but i cant search for it right now.

Would be interesting to see that, as it’s not what they’ve been saying elsewhere.

You’re not by any chance thinking of this are you?

I put on record that I have had correspondence with your chief executive officer, Derek Mitchell, on this. He confirms my reading that protected date of claim has been lost but outlines the various platforms by which claimants can have their date of claim protected, although it will not necessarily be from the date they walk in the door. He then talks about significant issues with universal credit that Citizens Advice continues to have. I will pass that letter to the clerks and make it publicly available on our web page if that is appropriate.

That’s a letter from Citizens Advice Scotland, not from DWP.

i was referring to this statement:

Sandra McDermott: On the deputy convener’s question, the DWP has given us a written statement, which I can provide to you. It says that regulation 10 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013
“states that the date of the UC claim can be the date of first notification by a customer that they need assistance making their claim where the person helping them make the claim is providing services to the Secretary of State.”
I can give the committee a copy of the statement. That is when local authorities were previously funded through the secretary of state. The statement goes on to say:
“However, Help to Claim is delivered under a grant agreement with Citizens Advice and DWP’s position is therefore that Regulation 10(1)(b) does not apply.”
The impact of that is that, because Citizens Advice is not providing services to the secretary of state, the date of claim will remain the date that the claim is fully submitted and not the date that help was requested from Citizens Advice. The DWP has to have the claim and all the evidence to support it. For some of our very vulnerable customers, there is a delay, and that is when they are losing out on much-needed money.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

Jon (CHDCA)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1313

Joined: 16 June 2010

stevenmcavoy - 25 July 2019 03:26 PM

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=12106&mode=pdf 
page 9 of this link.

Hm, the quote given from DWP’s letter says nothing about whether local authority assistance could have fallen under reg 10. Sandra McDermott infers that it does, but we’d need to see the full letter to know if DWP themselves were meaning to say that.

I have spoken to staff who did Assisted Digital, and looked though the documentation DWP supplied them when ADS was introduced, and have seen no mention of protecting the date of claim. David’s posts in this thread are the only real-world confirmation I’ve seen that reg 10 has ever actually been applied. And even then, he had to get it by either appeal or MR. (Which incidentally leaves me a bit puzzled as to why he is reluctant to refer to HTC, but was ok to refer to ADS, I’m not sure what the difference is? )

Anyway, it’s interesting to me that David was successful on MR, as that suggests a different approach between different DWP decision-makers, i.e. a lack of clear guidance on this issue.

I remain entirely in the dark as to how the funding arrangements for ADS might differ from HTC, and why HTC can’t count as a ‘service’. I understand that legal opinions have been given that this is the case, but I haven’t yet got to see the details. I’m running out of things to say about reg 10, but I must say I find it astounding that I can’t get a straight answer to even the most basic of questions on this topic.

NAI
forum member

Unclaimed Benefits Campaign, Middlesbrough CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 105

Joined: 12 January 2015

I wonder if anyone is on route with a FTT appeal regarding the date of claim for Citizens Advice provided Help to Claim or, maybe even heading towards UT.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

Jon (CHDCA) - 25 July 2019 09:47 PM
stevenmcavoy - 25 July 2019 03:26 PM

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=12106&mode=pdf 
page 9 of this link.

Hm, the quote given from DWP’s letter says nothing about whether local authority assistance could have fallen under reg 10. Sandra McDermott infers that it does, but we’d need to see the full letter to know if DWP themselves were meaning to say that.

I have spoken to staff who did Assisted Digital, and looked though the documentation DWP supplied them when ADS was introduced, and have seen no mention of protecting the date of claim. David’s posts in this thread are the only real-world confirmation I’ve seen that reg 10 has ever actually been applied. And even then, he had to get it by either appeal or MR. (Which incidentally leaves me a bit puzzled as to why he is reluctant to refer to HTC, but was ok to refer to ADS, I’m not sure what the difference is? )

Anyway, it’s interesting to me that David was successful on MR, as that suggests a different approach between different DWP decision-makers, i.e. a lack of clear guidance on this issue.

I remain entirely in the dark as to how the funding arrangements for ADS might differ from HTC, and why HTC can’t count as a ‘service’. I understand that legal opinions have been given that this is the case, but I haven’t yet got to see the details. I’m running out of things to say about reg 10, but I must say I find it astounding that I can’t get a straight answer to even the most basic of questions on this topic.

my understanding is the hair splitting is that the DWP say the councils were contracted by them to provide the service where as the CAB is a grant and not them being contracted to provide it.

as I say in the session ive linked to I think that’s subject to challenge.

I myself haven’t had any examples of help to claim protecting backdates under the old contract but then due to my client group having a learning disability and my biggest area being Glasgow, ive been to some extend protected from the uc roll out due to a combination of the gateways and Glasgow not going full roll out until December last year.

David Hornell
forum member

Money matters - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 13

Joined: 10 August 2010

Jon in response to your query “Which incidentally leaves me a bit puzzled as to why he is reluctant to refer to HTC, but was ok to refer to ADS, I’m not sure what the difference is? “

As a Welfare Rights Team based in HSCP it was imperative for us to protect the date of claim as quite often our service users did not attend their DS appointment or the agencies providing the service could not see them for a few days to a week. By protecting the date of claim this not only protected their UC payment including the Housing costs. Every referral we made from Nov 2017 was done by email so we had a record of it and we outcomed the claim. Most were awarded from DOC if not MR submitted all overturned except one ,which went to appeal and was successful as claim made on 25/04/18 whilst we referred on 23/04/18.  DOC accepted by tribunal under Reg 10 as made on 23/04/18.

If this appeal case was referred to HTC the claimant loses 2 days UC including Housing costs, hence we do not refer to HTC as the current DWP position is Reg 10 does not apply to HTC.

Jon (CHDCA)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1313

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks David. Just to recap where I’m coming from here, DWP are saying that Reg 10 did not apply to ADS either. The quote above from Sandra McDermott given by stevenmcavoy might be read as confirming that everyone agreed that local authority help (ADS) could previously fall under reg 10(1)(b). I think I read it as such when I quoted it earlier in this thread (post #32). However, I was then told by DWP that neither ADS nor HTC could fall under reg 10(1)(b). A careful reading of what was actually quoted to the Scottish committee does seem consistent with this, i.e. DWP themselves aren’t cited as saying the previous policy was any different to the current one.

Here’s the DWP statement that I have, from https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/registering_date_of_universal_cr?nocache=incoming-1388526#incoming-1388526

... The provision of services generally requires a contractual relationship. Assisted Digital support provided under Universal Support was not provided contractually but rather via a Grant Funding agreement. Regulation 10(1)(b) therefore did not apply to those accessing the Universal Support Assisted Digital support.

Both the previous Universal Support model and the new Citizen’s Advice support model run alongside our national Jobcentre Plus offer, and provide additional and alternative support for claimants who need help making their first claim. Until a claim is completed and submitted, a claimant cannot access support such as that provided by work coaches and advances of benefit so the critical factor has always been to provide support to make and complete a claim quickly rather than rely on regulation 10(1)(b) to protect a date of claim.

And then see Robert Watlling’s letter to NAWRA on behalf of DWP https://www.nawra.org.uk/wordpress/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NAWRA-response-on-behalf-of-Amber-Rudd-12July2019.pdf

... our arrangement with Citizens Advice comprised .. grant funding: just as the preceding Universal Support grant funding for local Authorities.  ... regulation 10(1)(b) does not permit backdating based on grant arrangements and there has been no policy change in that regard ...

So given these reasonably clear statements, I was interested in your comments to the contrary that you were accessing reg 10(1)(b) under ADS, albeit via MR or appeal. I initially thought you were saying that you routinely had to start a challenge in order to get a DOC, but I now see that’s not case. Now, it might be that funding arrangements in Scotland were different to those in England/Wales and we are comparing apples and oranges? Or, it might be that some DWP staff were making decisions that didn’t follow their own high level policy? Or it might be that DWP have changed their stance between ADS and HTC, but want to give the impression that their new opinion on what counts as a service has always been in place? Or, it might be that I’m just confused or overlooking something.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, it’s good to have it confirmed that this regulation has actually seen some real-life application.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

stevenmcavoy - 25 July 2019 03:26 PM

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=12106&mode=pdf 
page 9 of this link.

i have been sent the full text of the email this was from.  copied below:


What is the position on backdating for Help to Claim?
Help to Claim brings no change to Universal Credit (UC) business as usual rules around establishing intent to claim or the need to establish date of claim through submission of the claim. Customers should not delay in submitting their Universal Credit claim (or the phone call to DWP where a claim by telephone is appropriate).
The backdating regulations do not have provision to allow a backdating period solely because claimants are waiting support from Citizens Advice although you should consider any other relevant factors which may affect the date of claim under business as usual rules.
Regulation 10 (1) (b) of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013, states that the date of the UC claim can be the date of first notification by a customer that they need assistance making their claim where the person helping them make the claim is providing services to the Secretary of State. However, Help to Claim is delivered under a grant agreement with Citizens Advice and DWP’s position is therefore that Regulation 10 (1) (b) does not apply. As Citizens Advice are not providing services to the Secretary of State, the date of claim will remain the date the claim is submitted and not the date that help was requested of Citizens Advice.
However, there may be other factors which may affect the date of claim, which should be considered under business as usual rules.

Thanks

 

Jon (CHDCA)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1313

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks Steve. I just don’t see anything in that email which justifies Sandra McDermott interjecting “That is when local authorities were previously funded through the secretary of state”, after the bit that describes reg 10 applying in the case that someone is providing services to the SoS. DWP are not using the word “However..” to draw a distinction between HTC and its predecessor, they are distinguishing between HTC and the requirements of reg 10.

Indeed, the email says re backdating that the move from ADS to HTC “brings no change” and is “business as usual”.

Hopefully someone can join all the dots together here ...

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 444

Joined: 4 March 2011

It’s hard to believe whether a service is being provided could be the sticking point. This is how the scheme was announced back in October 2018:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/citizens-advice-to-provide-support-to-universal-credit-claimants

DWP will enter into the new partnership with Citizens Advice immediately, and they will run their developing service alongside local authorities until 31 March 2019, when they will deliver the full service solely from April 2019.

DWP will provide £39 million of funding from April 2019 to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland to provide this service. DWP will fund Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland a further £12 million to set up delivery in the run up to April 2019 to ensure a smooth transition to the new delivery model.