Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

DWP plans for both managed move to UC and voluntary move to UC

‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 > 

Claire H
forum member

CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 3

Joined: 6 May 2020

Charles - 05 July 2022 02:45 AM

It is important to note that the tidying up exercise carried out by these Regulations have the side-effect of disallowing retrospective CTC claims by newly recognised refugees. Such claims were previously allowed after legal action taken by CPAG which ended earlier this year.

Hi Charles

Thanks for flagging this. I was initially concerned about this as well but having thought about it some more I’m not sure I agree that it has this effect whilst the TC (Immigration) Regs 2003 remain as they are. I think that the ‘treated as’ date in reg 3(6) of the Immigration Regs continues to apply for these purposes, as the Court of Appeal/Court of Session found it did for the No 23 Order. As those ‘treated as’ dates will all fall before these new amendments come into force (and there is no presumption of retrospective affect of the new legislation), then the claims are not prohibited. This would be supported by the fact there’s no clear intention expressed or language stating that they are removing the ability to claim for retrospective periods, which was part of the court’s reasoning for finding as it did in DK/Adnan.

I will update further at the end of the month if we hear anything different from HMRC, but otherwise I think newly recognised refugees should continue to make backdated claims for CTC if they claimed asylum prior to the roll out of UC and it looks like they might be entitled.

While I’m on the topic - if anyone has refugee clients who tried to claim CTC any time before the court judgment (even if they didn’t get as far as sending a claim form off) who have not yet heard from HMRC about their claim being processed then please send their details to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and we are able to raise specific cases with HMRC to make contact with them.

Thanks,
Claire

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1146

Joined: 27 February 2019

Thanks Claire, I see what you are saying.

I had thought that as the new Reg 6A(1) doesn’t mention a date, it is therefore irrelevant that the claim is treated as made earlier. Of course I do not think the Regs have retrospective effect, but here the claim is actually made now despite being treated as made earlier, and therefore retrospective effect is not technically needed to stop the claim being allowed.

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC London Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 418

Joined: 1 October 2018

I’m told that 250 migration notices will be issued in the Truro and Falmouth area from the 25th.  The 25th is the date that the amending regs come into force so presumably this part of the discovery phase will include couples (which were not included in Bolton or Medway).

If anyone is supporting claimants through this process then please get in touch with CPAG’s Early Warning System to share your experiences.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3496

Joined: 14 April 2010

Owen_Stevens - 13 July 2022 10:24 AM

I’m told that 250 migration notices will be issued in the Truro and Falmouth area from the 25th ....

Cheers Owen ... just added some confirmation: DWP to test alternative version of universal credit ‘migration notice’ in Bolton and Medway before issuing notices in Truro and Falmouth from 25 July 2022

Jo_Smith
forum member

Citizens Advice Hillingdon

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 3 October 2018

From that job advert:
“DWP is an amazing place to work. Walk into any one of our jobcentres or service centres and you will be overwhelmed by the passion and commitment that our people have for supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, at often the most difficult times in their lives.”

In the meantime, in the real world:
....

(I do not have to say anything, do I?)

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC London Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 418

Joined: 1 October 2018

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 468

Joined: 17 June 2010

Well the next time the committee meets Ms Coffey again or more probably the next SoS (am I just being hopeful) will be interesting!
Has anyone mentioned to her that the Tories have been in power for the last 12 years so blaming the previous administration doesn’t really cut it

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 931

Joined: 24 November 2017

“l) Will the Department provide the Committee with a copy of the evaluation of benefit sanctions, as it previously committed to doing?
We no longer plan to publish the report. This was commissioned by a previous administration. The notion of a sanction acts not only through its imposition on a claimant but importantly also through its effect as a deterrent. Due to the way the report was commissioned, we were unable to assess the deterrent effect and
therefore this research does not present a comprehensive picture of sanctions.”

I read that as - it didn’t give us the answer we wanted but we will not admit that.

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 468

Joined: 17 June 2010

Ianb - 20 July 2022 04:12 PM

“l)

I read that as - it didn’t give us the answer we wanted but we will not admit that.

And she really must have known this at the committee meeting but didn’t want to be questioned about it

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 255

Joined: 22 January 2020

Paul Stockton
forum member

Epping Forest CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 198

Joined: 6 May 2014

Highly unlikely. This is a negative resolution SI. That means it goes through without the need for a debate. It is possible to put down a motion to negative it but that doesn’t seem to have happened and it came into force today. In any event it is almost unknown for the HoL to negative an SI, even if the government allows it to be debated. It has some indefinable political impact, in that the standing of the DWP minister in the HoL (where the government does not have a majority) is damaged, but that’s all.

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC London Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 418

Joined: 1 October 2018

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC London Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 418

Joined: 1 October 2018

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1146

Joined: 27 February 2019

I haven’t gone through the Medium article properly yet - hopefully I’ll get a chance in the next few days, but it makes a serious error regarding income for tax credit purposes.

In many (most?) cases it is more beneficial for the income details held by tax credits to be higher rather than lower on migration day.