Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Any issues with delivery of universal credit in job centres or service centres?
On behalf of both rightsnet and NAWRA I had a meeting with JP Marks (https://www.gov.uk/government/people/john-paul-marks) today. He is in charge of delivery issues in job centres and service centres among other things.
He was very honest about the problems that exist within UC and agreed that UC is really not working for a significant minority.
On implicit consent - this is currently being looked at, recently by the SSAC and also with stakeholders in a couple of weeks - and a prototype is being developed - see https://ssac.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/07/consent-in-universal-credit-understanding-what-works/. But he did agree in our meeting to see if the longevity of explicit consent could be extended to 6 months in the interim.
He also said that in about 2 weeks a change should be coming in so that UC advances cannot be claimed online without the claimant having made contact with the work coach - something which should help cut out the scams (and which NAWRA asked for 2 months ago - https://www.nawra.org.uk/2019/07/fraudulent-universal-credit-claims-being-made-to-obtain-advance-payments/!)
While he may not be able to influence policy significantly, he is keen to listen to what needs doing. So if anyone has any delivery issues please put them here or email/direct message me. Also if there are any job centres or service centres where you think there are issues then also pass that on and I can feed it up.
He is also looking at sanctions and wanting to ensure they are not applied inappropriately so any issues on that please also pass on.
[ Edited: 3 Sep 2019 at 02:54 pm by Daphne ]opening ‘bid’;
Confusion of responsibility between work coaches / case managers / decision makers / dispute resolution teams / appeal team etc (being passed from pillar to post - or not being able to contact anyone / get a response at all!).
The amount of information held on the UC account that is ‘hidden’ from the claimant and only available by making a SAR (the over reliance on process rather than legislation, appropriate staff training or ‘common sense’) .
Lack of effective ‘escalation routes’ for representatives.
Failure of UC to deal with applications for ‘mandatory reconsideration’ or provide appeal responses within a reasonable / statutory time scale - increasing need to use ‘notice before action’ to get a response.
No facility for uploading most documents to UC account, delays in dealing with ‘whitepost’, requirement for claimants to have to take documents to Jobcentre for scanning to service centre (which is sometimes refused, available by appointment only or difficult for claimants with disabilities etc. and costs money in fares etc).
In other words UC is more remote and inaccessible in practice compared to legacy benefit and as the number of claimants in receipt of UC increases the standard / speed of service is declining. For a system that is supposed to ‘simplify’ means tested benefits it is infinitely more frustrating and time consuming to deal with (at least from a representatives view point).
Couple of others to add to Peter’s above.
Safeguarding arrangements as per recent CPAG article re: Vulnerable clients district/regional inconsistencies in terms of JCP responses.
Travel distances in rural areas - for example We have a jobcentre in Bridport, but DWP demand clients from Bridport travel a 46 mile round trip to Weymouth job centre for ID - public transport at best hourly public transport (summer timetable). Lyme Regis over 60 mile round trip (couple of hours minimum on bus and bus changes - summer timetable ), and Beaminster nearly 60 miles (3 hours minimum by bus (up to 3 bus changes each way - summer timetable).
Adherence to the Equality Act 2010 i.e. being proactive and making reasonable adjustments.
I have had a couple of clients who have had difficulty getting changes of circumstances dealt with via their online account timeously/at all because they don’t have a work coach due to having NWRR due to already working enough hours/meeting earnings thresholds. I have taken to advising a “belt and braces” approach of putting messages in the journal but following up with phone calls; however, given the lengthy waits involved to get through to the UC helpline this is burdensome when you have to fit it round a job, parenting etc.
In one of the job centres where I’m co-located the management are ignorant of the SDP gateway; last week they tried to make me claim UC with a client whose JSA claim had been closed but who was receiving SDP at the time. When I explained that he failed the gateway, deputy manager told me that that wasn’t the case because his JSA claim had bee closed, ending his SDP entitlement. The manager was sat at the next desk and must have heard the entire interaction; I informed about the SDP while shadowing back in April, when he admitted he knew nothing about it, but said he would check. Four months on, claimants are still being given incorrect advice.
Entries/Queries posted on client’s journals being ignored, or the response is obviously an attempt to “fob off” the client.
Example: Client turns 65 in Oct 2018. UC continues (erroneously) in payment, preventing claims for HB and PC. Repeated queries on journal were either ignored totally or answered with incorrect information. This continued for six months, and was only brought to a close by a complaint lodged via client’s MP and by forwarding a copy of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 with the relevant sections highlighted, and a strongly worded request that JCP apply the Law correctly.
It should not be necessary for advisers to have to inform JCP of their own legal regulations. This illustrates the paucity of training and a lack of basic benefits knowledge by those making decisions which have a potentially profound impact on claimant’s lives.
Entries/Queries posted on client’s journals being ignored, or the response is obviously an attempt to “fob off” the client.
Example: Client turns 65 in Oct 2018. UC continues (erroneously) in payment, preventing claims for HB and PC. Repeated queries on journal were either ignored totally or answered with incorrect information. This continued for six months, and was only brought to a close by a complaint lodged via client’s MP and by forwarding a copy of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 with the relevant sections highlighted, and a strongly worded request that JCP apply the Law correctly.
It should not be necessary for advisers to have to inform JCP of their own legal regulations. This illustrates the paucity of training and a lack of basic benefits knowledge by those making decisions which have a potentially profound impact on claimant’s lives.
‘It should not be necessary for advisers to have to inform JCP of their own legal regulations. This illustrates the paucity of training and a lack of basic benefits knowledge by those making decisions which have a potentially profound impact on claimant’s lives’.
Unfortunately, its the norm, we are having to cite legislation and attach links on a routine basis.
Similarly we are having to escalate routinely via our MP’s office (citing legislation and attaching links) on a near weekly/fortnightly basis.
The nearest parallel i can think of is the privatisation/outsourcing of HB in the late 90’s and noughties in places like Hackney, Southwark and Croydon and not just in terms of the then well publicised systemic dysfunction and subsequent implosion of those services.
Claimants who have been making sufficient NI contributions are being told to claim UC, rather than ‘new-style’ JSA/ESA. JCP staff seem oblivious to the continued existence of contribution-based benefits.
Even instructing claimants to specifically mention their contribution record when contacting JCP has just resulted in staff telling them they are wrong.
The most persistent and clear problem I see is lack of training of UC staff, at all levels. Mistakes are made on a rudimentary level, to the point where a simple checklist system would save both DWP and claimants much trouble/money.
It should not be necessary for advisers to have to inform JCP of their own legal regulations. This illustrates the paucity of training and a lack of basic benefits knowledge by those making decisions which have a potentially profound impact on claimant’s lives.
It was ever thus, but ......
To expand on my earlier reflection about how ‘remote’ UC administration is from the claimant / adviser / DWP’s own staff / scrutiny.
That 20% of claimants generate 80% of the work (for DWP staff or advisers) is a long standing cliche of the benefits system.
I would suggest one of the conceptual fallacies of the UC system is that it will ‘transform lives’. UC is just another formula for determining how much financial support a claimant will receive (that is little different in practice to the means tests in benefits it replaces). Another conceptual fallacy is that the UC administrative ‘self-service’ automated claim management process will (a) save DWP staff costs (b) transform claimants lives!? As advisers we can already see that UC administration has the potential to be an even greater failure that the CSA with all the consequences we already see for claimants on a day to day basis.
The ‘one size fits all’ on line process and the increased reliance on IT to undertake the work of human beings means that UC staff often have little understanding of the rules or internal processes. For example we have an ongoing UC self-employed earnings case for a single claimant. We made a SAR for the claimants UC records. Back came a bundle of paper 7cm thick! To me this demonstrated just how process driven UC is and one reason why DWP contact centre staff / case managers can’t answer questions or resolve issues because there is so much ‘hidden’ process information to wade through to work out what is (or is not) going on.
What is required is a process that involves more human understanding of the rules / process (training) and ability to intervene (initiative) to ‘short cut’ the process / problem and respond to the individual circumstances / problem. In practice UC staffing is ‘front loaded’ in the Jobcenter to assist claimants ‘to find work’ while the ‘backroom’ process (which provides the key functions) is desperately under staffed or trained. Note how DWP Minister’s only ever visit Jobcenters for a photo opportunity!
At present the UC claimant base is skewed towards unemployed claimants and is only slowly taking on the more complex cases as new claims and natural / managed migration progress. Unless UC is properly resourced and staff adequately trained it simply will never work satisfactorily for (at least) the 20%. Because UC puts all/most of the UC claimants ‘eggs in one basket’ when things go wrong they do so more quickly and to a greater degree than under legacy and become more intractable.
I have long argued to anyone who will listen that if a means test is too complicated for staff to calculate by hand (without a calculator) on a one sided calculation sheet (like the Supp Ben A14N) then it (and the admin. processes required to manage that means test) is probably to complicated in practice to encompass the vast range of circumstances and changes thereto of claimants. The DWP have not learnt from the CSA, tax credits (let alone other govt. IT procurement) that ever more sophisticated IT (and less staff) is probably not the answer to dealing with human beings!
Just to say thank you for all your comments - keep them coming!
When I get a moment I’m going to sit down and pull out the key threads to email to JP Marks. If I need to I may come back to you for further clarification/examples… Hope that’s OK…
I’ll make a punt again for the care leavers - the UC regs clearly state they can make an advance claim ahead of turning 18, but DWP are interpreting this only as an advanced “preparation” of a claim. So young care leavers, with all the other issues they might have, are not able to make a claim until they turn 18, often times they cannot do this (failing to engage with social workers) so their claim is now late and there is no UC backdating.
Also, local experience of Job Centres not consistently opening for interviews outside of work hours for people on UC, working full time. There is an inconsistent approach to doing this despite all the shouting about UC being a bespoke benefit designed around claimants’ individual needs. UC helpline books appts at the next available slot (during working hours) and local Job Centre managers are reluctant to rearrange after normal 9-5 working hours without a lot of work to be persuaded to do so.
Thank you Daphne.
Not being able to refer through MSRS for a WCA without a med3.
I’ve seen a few cases now where people are detained in hospital with no access to their GPs; can’t get a med3, thus can’t get the WCA started. The clock should start ticking the minute someone is detanied but it’s taking months to sort out.
[ Edited: 19 Sep 2019 at 09:38 am by Dan_Manville ]Jobcentre staff acting as decision makers by telling claimants that they’re not entititled to UC before an application has even been completed. Specifically this has been a particular problem for me with disabled students in receipt of PIP and in f-time education who’ve I’ve advised to claim UC.
Job centre work coaches insisting that ESA claimants submit a fit note when at their initial appointments after making their UC claim, even when they quote regulation 19 and had noted on journal that they already have a determined award.
I have had clients get in touch with me in tears because they were forced to submit a fit note and now have the (inevitable) WCA referral.
Sorry Daphne - corporate appointee issue again.. We’ve had a couple of instances of clients with a corporate appointee from our Deputyship team(and about whom there are safeguarding concerns) being able to go into the jobcentre or phone the helpline and make changes to their account. I now have an FOI response which confirms what should happen which is that the corporate appointee details should be available, as a “flag” on the UC account, to all UC staff including those in jobcentres and staffing the helpline.
And further, states:
“The corporate appointee flag on the claim alerts DWP agents to the fact that the claim is managed by the corporate appointee rather than the claimant. Agents are aware that the corporate appointee is solely responsible for managing the claim for Universal Credit. If the claimant, rather than the corporate appointee, makes contact with Universal Credit, no account action will be taken. The claimant will be referred to their appointee and the call will be ended.”
Which clearly is not happening in practice.
Thanks everyone - keep them coming - I am putting together a document to send to JP marks :)
Claimants who have been making sufficient NI contributions are being told to claim UC, rather than ‘new-style’ JSA/ESA. JCP staff seem oblivious to the continued existence of contribution-based benefits.
Even instructing claimants to specifically mention their contribution record when contacting JCP has just resulted in staff telling them they are wrong.The most persistent and clear problem I see is lack of training of UC staff, at all levels. Mistakes are made on a rudimentary level, to the point where a simple checklist system would save both DWP and claimants much trouble/money.
I agree with this. We are still getting cases of people being told to claim NSESA online, and in addition to this we are getting repeated cases of DWP refusing to deal with written claims because the claimant hasn’t claimed by phone and has not yet made an appointment at the Jobcentre. That’s not what the C&P Regs say, but DWP insists on referring us to its ‘guidelines’, which bear no resemblance to the law.
In one case the claimant keeps phoning the 0800 number to make an appointment and is told he must do so online.
My colleague who works with homeless claimants states he is seeing a number of examples where WCAs are not being triggered despite Med3 after Med3 being submitted. In one example, the claimant has been providing fit notes for 7 months but no UC50 has been issued.
[ Edited: 9 Sep 2019 at 09:03 am by Chrissum ]Oh, and as care leavers were mentioned above…. we have had complaints from care leavers’ support workers that UC Claimant Commitments are ‘one size fits all’ and DWP will not listen when advised of individual circumstances and needs, leading to inappropriate requirements and sanctions.
In one case the CC blandly advises the claimant to seek work via ‘friends and family’ - ignoring the fact that ‘family’ can be a bit of an issue for care leavers…
I have had a couple of clients who have had difficulty getting changes of circumstances dealt with via their online account timeously/at all because they don’t have a work coach due to having NWRR due to already working enough hours/meeting earnings thresholds. I have taken to advising a “belt and braces” approach of putting messages in the journal but following up with phone calls; however, given the lengthy waits involved to get through to the UC helpline this is burdensome when you have to fit it round a job, parenting etc.
In one of the job centres where I’m co-located the management are ignorant of the SDP gateway; last week they tried to make me claim UC with a client whose JSA claim had been closed but who was receiving SDP at the time. When I explained that he failed the gateway, deputy manager told me that that wasn’t the case because his JSA claim had bee closed, ending his SDP entitlement. The manager was sat at the next desk and must have heard the entire interaction; I informed about the SDP while shadowing back in April, when he admitted he knew nothing about it, but said he would check. Four months on, claimants are still being given incorrect advice.
I dealt with a fife client who had been told they didn’t need to claim carers allowance as they had the element in their uc claim. told this in local jcp though I don’t know which one.
amongst other issues they wouldn’t have got the carers supplement without making the claim.
Not being able to refer through MSRS for a WCA without a med3.
I’ve seen a few cases now where people are detained in hospital with no access to their GPs; can’t get a med3, thus can’t get the WCA started. The clock should start ticking the minute someone is detaied but it’s taking months to sort out.
Dan not the solution to the problem, but just a thought.
But i remember years working as a welf in hospitals, we persuaded them to order books of med 3’s and med 5’s to complement the med 10’s.
Might be worth having a chat with the Consultant’s or SHO’s and persuading them to order med 3’s.
Another thought would imagine local Mind, Rethink reps/advocates etc would be supportive.
Quite a few clients I’ve had (expecting/undergoing cancer treatment) are not sent the UC50 for a long time or not referred for a WCA. Had a number of clients who have been waiting months to get a UC50 form from DWP before coming to us whilst they have been providing sick notes. Client’s are often expected to attend F2F work focused interviews in the interim and not offered reasonable adjustments until the adviser asks for this.
Long delays for MR responses. I’ve had issues where clients’ MRs have been received but not acted upon, with the explanation that the client has to phone up to complete these.
Myself and my colleagues have all had clients that have been refused a WCA referral where they’re expecting/undergoing/recovering from cancer treatment and their income is over the standard allowance amount, say if their partner is working, but would be entitled if they had LCWRA. It’s been a battle to get that penny entitlement pending the LCWRA element every time and get the claim reopened.
Quite a few clients I’ve had (expecting/undergoing cancer treatment) are not sent the UC50 for a long time or not referred for a WCA.
You can download UC50s and send them in; it should trigger the WCA referral so long as there’s a disability reported on the journal and a med3 provided
Quite a few clients I’ve had (expecting/undergoing cancer treatment) are not sent the UC50 for a long time or not referred for a WCA.
You can download UC50s and send them in; it should trigger the WCA referral so long as there’s a disability reported on the journal and a med3 provided
Thanks, I’ve only recently found these myself, but wasn’t sure if they’d be accepted so we’ve been sending complaints instead. Is the WCA referral backdated to the date the first sick note is provided as the normal procedure, if we completed one of these?
to reinforce some of the points made by others. Client seen today. Issue is UC WCA ‘fit for work’ decision.
Work coaches reply on journal to client; “I explained that mandatory reconsideration can only be requested within one month of the decision as explained at the time. I printed out for you the decision letter sent to your journal and highlighted this information”.
. Is the WCA referral backdated to the date the first sick note is provided as the normal procedure, if we completed one of these?
It has been on the few that I’ve handled. The three month in which the LCWRAE cannot be paid start from the first date the medical evidence (well, the med3) has been provided.
I’m quite looking forward to the Tribunal where they did the biographical check in hospital but didn’t commence said 3 month period until 6 months later when the claimant was discharged and managed to get a med3 organised but that’s another moan…
My colleague who works with homeless claimants states he is seeing a number of examples where WCAs are not being triggered despite Med3 after Med3 being submitted. In one example, the claimant has been providing fit notes for 7 months but no ESA50 has been issued.
Have come across a client who has been providing Med 3s for 9 or 10 months with no UC50. He was told by another agency to put a note on journal and ask Work Coach to trigger WCA. He checked with Work Coach who told him that the WCA process was “automatic” and he (or she) could not speed it up. Also, she strongly advised him not to push for WCA as if he is found fit for work he will “lose everything” and she will have to impose full conditionality on him. Client clearly meets criteria for LCW&WRA;...
. Is the WCA referral backdated to the date the first sick note is provided as the normal procedure, if we completed one of these?
It has been on the few that I’ve handled. The three month in which the LCWRAE cannot be paid start from the first date the medical evidence (well, the med3) has been provided.
I’m quite looking forward to the Tribunal where they did the biographical check in hospital but didn’t commence said 3 month period until 6 months later when the claimant was discharged and managed to get a med3 organised but that’s another moan…
Thank you for the info with this, hopefully this is going to help a lot of clients get out of this limbo phase or having to chase this down.
Delays caused by the HRT - I have a client Hungarian nationality - who has settled status. Following her clam, she had her identity appointment about a week later and her HRT appointment a week after that. She went to the HRT appointment with clear evidence from the Home Office of her status. However her details have been taken and sent off to as decision maker with a commitment that she will have a decision in 28 days. However, no offer of an advance before passing the HRT, so she is left destitute for a minimum of 6 weeks. Apparently the HRT and identity interviews done by different staff, but surely this issue could be resolved? Also I cannot see why, when proof of settled status is given, there should be any need to refer.
. Is the WCA referral backdated to the date the first sick note is provided as the normal procedure, if we completed one of these?
It has been on the few that I’ve handled. The three month in which the LCWRAE cannot be paid start from the first date the medical evidence (well, the med3) has been provided.
I’m quite looking forward to the Tribunal where they did the biographical check in hospital but didn’t commence said 3 month period until 6 months later when the claimant was discharged and managed to get a med3 organised but that’s another moan…
Thank you for the info with this, hopefully this is going to help a lot of clients get out of this limbo phase or having to chase this down.
The legislation and the guidance suggest that the 3 month relevant period can start with self-certification, so there is no need to wait for the med3.
The legislation and the guidance suggest that the 3 month relevant period can start with self-certification, so there is no need to wait for the med3.
I know, but the build says different. If there’s not a med3 on the system they cannot make a referral through MSRS as the dialogue is greyed out. This is a real problem for my people who are detained under the MHA; getting a WCA for them is proving nigh impossible.
I know, but the build says different. If there’s not a med3 on the system they cannot make a referral through MSRS as the dialogue is greyed out. This is a real problem for my people who are detained under the MHA; getting a WCA for them is proving nigh impossible.
But if/when you eventually sort it out and get the WCA, when do they end the waiting period? Is it 3 months from the med3, or from when they were first notified about the medical issues?