Debt management apparent proforma (?) letter response to request waive recovery of UC overpayments

The attached letter may be of interest e.g. reference to HM Treasury rules.

Is this supposed to be a response to a specific request for write off?

It’s really pretty inadequate if so.

It looks to all the world like this is a standard form letter reeling off policies in general terms. There is nothing in the letter which indicates that the particular facts of the claimants case have been reviewed or that an attempt has been made to apply the policy to them. There is nothing responding to any evidence or arguments which were used to support the request or explaining why they were thought inadequate in this case. The bald assertion that the case has been “carefully considered” does not make it so.

I think its pretty likely that the recipient of this letter could successfully challenge it by judicial review (to the extent of having it quashed and needing to be remade at least).

Elliot Kent - 13 March 2020 08:13 AM

Is this supposed to be a response to a specific request for write off?

It’s really pretty inadequate if so.

It looks to all the world like this is a standard form letter reeling off policies in general terms. There is nothing in the letter which indicates that the particular facts of the claimants case have been reviewed or that an attempt has been made to apply the policy to them. There is nothing responding to any evidence or arguments which were used to support the request or explaining why they were thought inadequate in this case. The bald assertion that the case has been “carefully considered” does not make it so.

I think its pretty likely that the recipient of this letter could successfully challenge it by judicial review (to the extent of having it quashed and needing to be remade at least).

It is actually!

Absolutely!

Hence why we posted because we felt it deserved a wider audience.

We’ve actually gone back across the Devon border to our client’s MP again asking him to take up our client’s case with a higher upper etc etc. We’ve shared with client’s MP the attached from our old MP to share with higher upper.

Hadn’t actually thought of a JR Elliot! Thanks for the suggestion!

In case you haven’t seen, CPAG has a pro-forma JR pre-action letter to challenge failure to use discretion not to recover UC overpayments -

https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/judicial-review/judicial-review-pre-action-letters/overpayment-recovery-uc

The wording is fairly standard across a range of DWP ‘products’ including overpayment decision notices and in replies from Ministers to MPs about individual cases.

Note the DWP are requiring medical evidence that is so specific it may be virtually impossible to obtain in practice (at least without payment to GP etc).

Should probably congratulate you on getting a reply - we have not received a single response from DM re a UC case to date - hence MP referral.

Ros - 13 March 2020 03:48 PM

In case you haven’t seen, CPAG has a pro-forma JR pre-action letter to challenge failure to use discretion not to recover UC overpayments -

https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/judicial-review/judicial-review-pre-action-letters/overpayment-recovery-uc

Thanks Ros!

Peter Turville - 13 March 2020 03:59 PM

The wording is fairly standard across a range of DWP ‘products’ including overpayment decision notices and in replies from Ministers to MPs about individual cases.

Note the DWP are requiring medical evidence that is so specific it may be virtually impossible to obtain in practice (at least without payment to GP etc).

Should probably congratulate you on getting a reply - we have not received a single response from DM re a UC case to date - hence MP referral.

Couldn’t agree more with the above Peter regarding standard wording!

I think payment or otherwise for the DWP to expect any Health professional to provide ‘evidence that is so singularly specific’ suggests e.g. they keep making the same mistakes over and over again as to to the complexity of mental illness and the impact of psycho-social stresses on mental well being.

Although evidence was provided to that effect and did mention the over payment. 

From our original email to our old MP ‘When the Welfare Reform Bill (i.e. Welfare Reform Act 2012) was being debated the Minister concerned (Chris Grayling) promised a ‘clear code of practice’ said it was the intention not to recover many overpayments which had been caused by official error - ‘The practical reality is that we do not have to recover money from people where official error has been made, and we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made. There will be an absolutely clear code of practice that will govern the circumstances in which recovery action will or will not be taken, to ensure consistent, considered decision making’.

Please see link to HOC, Hansard, 19 May 2011, col 1019 -https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/welfare/110519/am/110519s01.htm

Will Quince’s response attached.

Typical non answer.

I’m not sure that there is much to be gained in this sort of correspondence.

Mr Quince (or whoever writes his letters) seems to have missed the point in that he seems to have misunderstood Parliament as having mandated rather than authorised recovery and therefore he has failed to recognise the existence of a discretion.

It’s also interesting to read that letter alongside his own statement to Parliament which both acknowledges the discretion and acknowledges that HMT guidance does permit waiver in certain cases
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-03-09/27034

But you are just shouting at the moon. The fact that a discretion exists does not demonstrate that your client should benefit from it. I am not sure that this issue is really going to go anywhere unless there are serious efforts to JR unreasoned decisions to recover.

Agreed Elliot yeah I’ll try to desist from some things Moon wise but not all, in future!!!

Yeah Ian!!!

Notwithstanding that i thought it was worth putting the letter out there for people to make of it what they will from a wider issue point of view….....

To clarify one academic point for purely reasons of pedantry or otherwise we had made a case arguing…..........rather than merely flagging up ‘a discretion exists’.

The Ministers reply is almost word for word as the replies we have seen to MPs or from DWP officials to ourselves. I note what Elliott says about shouting at the moon. However, the difference between the individual reply, statements to the house, FOI responses, official guidance etc. may be helpful for ‘notice before action’ etc. Sometimes its what they don’t say that is as useful as what they do say?