Time limit to accept revised claimant commitment online?

Can UC legally close the claim, 13 days following a to-do list of accepting a new claimant commitment following a change of circumstances when the journal entry provided no time limit?

How did this situation come about?

s14 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 gives the SSWP pretty much unlimited powers to dictate and review claimant commitments, and if the claimant commitment is not accepted, then the effect is that the claimant is no longer entitled to UC (see s1(4)(e)).

But Chapter J1 of ADM gives the distinct impression that claimant commitments should only be varied following a conversation with the claimant and the claimant will usually be expected to agree the new commitment there and then - see J1010 and the note to J1031 - but with a “cooling off period” if they refuse to accept the revised commitment and the possibility of extension for the purposes of asking for a review - see J1015-16.

So I think a bit of context as to the series of events leading to closure of the claim could help.

Yes, some more context would be helpful.

It does sound like this was an auto-generated claimant commitment. Full service guidance says “For auto-generated Commitments, claimants are reminded to accept their Commitments within 7 days of receiving the prompt.” It then continues “If they don’t accept the Commitments and do not have complex needs their claim must be closed the day after.”

Sorry, I was in a rush yesterday
Situation is a family, refugees with poor English, just had third baby, so although will not be paid UC for the baby we reported the change of circumstances in the journal - this was done with Dads account.  The baby was kept in hospital for a week as was poorly and therefore they had a lot on.  Dad is handing in sick notes (not assessed yet) and apart from monthly appointments with his work coach (there is a specific work coach at the local jobcentre dealing with this group of refugees - the home office vulnerable families resettlement scheme), so the work coach takes their situation into account.
Mum not able to log in to her UC account (this has now been sorted).

So yes it would have been an automatically generated claimant commitment - but it just seems so incredibly wrong to close a claim following a change that meant she now has no work requirements.

Where would she have got (and understood) the guidance that it needed to be done within 7 days?  On what legal grounds can the claim just be closed?

Cheers
Yvonne

Actually, I believe the meaning of the full-service guidance I quoted above is that she should have been informed in the journal entry that she had 7 days to accept it. (That guidance is aimed at DWP staff, describing what the process should be, and is always written in that sort of language, as if to say that this is what is to be done by DWP.)

Technically, if an updated claimant commitment is not accepted straight away, the conditions of entitlement to UC are not fulfilled, and the claim should be closed straight away. The regs only provide for a longer time period in which the claimant commitment can be accepted in two cases: 1. new claims/awards, and 2. when the claimant requests it be reviewed before they accept it.

The legal basis for giving 7 days as mentioned in the guidance for updated claimant commitments must therefore be that until the end of that period, the original claimant commitment is still the current one, and the new one is only a draft version, and not yet operative. This is backed-up by the wording in J1031.

In any event, there does not seem to be any explicit legal requirement to provide such a period nor to inform the claimant of such a period. However, it is certainly unreasonable to act in such a way, so perhaps you could get somewhere with that.

This is exactly (apart from her name) the journal entry:

Please can you access your account and accept your commitments.
Failure to accept these can result in your claim closing down.
Thanks

This was on the 23rd August, we did the change of circumstances on the 15th August and the claim closed on 4th Sept, assessment period is 21st to 22nd

So no time limit given, and ‘can’ is ambiguous

Yup, definitely unreasonable. Not sure what the best way forward is though.

Anything around the claimant commitment is pretty much always in favour of DWP, but arguing some of the following in complaints and other local escalation routes/ channels does sometimes work with this problem
.
Regulation 16 (b) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, number 376 and paragraph 7.10 - 7.13 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations, particularly the last sentence of para 7.10 give some insight into there is a DWP “get out clause”, they just choose not to use it.

There are no specific clauses or words in legislation to define or restrict what is meant in Regulation 16 (b) “there are exceptional circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect the person to accept a claimant commitment.”
So it seems the intention of the regulations and the explanation about them to Parliament and the Social Security Advisory Committee etc would appear to allow DWP to decide someone does not have to accept a commitment in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional bit is the stumbling block and getting them to accept it and well I could go on!

The case details seem to show this is perhaps is an “exceptional case”. Moreover, DWP appointed one of their “special” people to deal with what they themselves seem to recognise as a complex case needing additional support. So what is that “special” person’s involvement now about helping to resolve this?

Honestly, I think there’s a reasonable chance that this gets sorted out just by ringing up and explaining the situation - if necessary to the escalation numbers - particularly given that the AP isn’t over yet.

This just seems to be a system issue - the claimant is expected to perform an administrative task that should be done behind the scenes as a matter of routine by DWP.

I have just experienced this with a family member.  By the way, I must say in fairness that the whole UC experience for this person has been entirely positive despite the case having some of the features that routinely get discussed on here (young student on PIP - the LCW Catch 22 - not only did they carry out a WCA, they paid UC in the interim).  Anyway, WCA was done on the papers and found LCWRA - letter placed in the journal saying money will be added to next payment.  But a to-do item appeared on the account: accept your commitments, even though they have just decided that there are none.  Clicked to accept, that was that.  It seems the commitments cannot be formally closed off without the claimant clicking the accept button.  Failing to do so should not be seen as a substantive failure on the claimant’s part, and it obviously ludicrous to close a claim for that reason.  So I would share Elliot’s optimism that a phone call might get this sorted out.

Edit: I suppose even for someone with LCWRA there can still be a claimant commitment, even if it does not include any kind of work related activity whatsoever.  The commitment on the case I describe above simply says “I’ll log in every now and then just to see what’s up, and I’ll let you know if I win the lottery”.  So maybe technically it is a substantive failure not clicking that button

her commitment box to tick for the reclaim was I will let you know if anything changes - ironic really as she would have already confirmed this when they made the claim and it all happened because she did what she had previously agreed and reported her change in circumstances!

thanks guys for your help, will get onto the escalation routes next week

The MR has been refused because 13 days is ‘ample time’!

If they reclaim within the AP in which the claim was closed, they shouldn’t lose anything anyway, as the new award would start from the date the previous award ended. But you’ve probably missed that already?

Charles, can I check these dates with you (and everyone else) please?

AP 22nd to 21st
Journal message re claimant commitment dated 23/08/19
Decision made on 4/9/19 to close claim from 22/08/19
Reclaim submitted 12/09/19
AP not changed and next payment due is 28/09/19

So will they be paid for the whole AP? and where in the regs will I find this

Sorry my brain is a friday afternoon mush

Thanks

Sorry, I had missed your earlier post where you wrote the dates.

Yes, they will get paid for the whole AP. However, it appears the waiting period for any potential LCWRA element for the partner will have to restart.

See reg 21(3C) here, and reg 26(5) here.

Extra guidance is available here

Thanks all, checked the payment screen yesterday and is the full amount for the AP, so very lucky we got the reclaim all done in same assessment period as the claim was closed.

Excellent. The only issue may be that the waiting period for any potential LCWRA element for the partner may now restart.

I think there’s a good chance though that the UC computer will not restart it automatically, as most reclaims (which are normally due to an increase of income) do not cause the waiting period to restart.