× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC overpayment waiver request - any luck?

mand74
forum member

Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund

Send message

Total Posts: 33

Joined: 2 November 2011

Hi All,

I am supporting a client who has had two UC overpayments due to official error.  One of the overpayments was for £18,000+ due to them failing to take into account his pension information that he disclosed.  The second is much smaller around £700 for capital issues.

He requested a waiver and went to a tribunal in relation to the first overpayment and the decision as upheld but a request was added for the DWP to consider not pursuing this.  He and we are chasing this but still waiting for a reply.  Both he and his partner have health conditions and finding it naturally stressful.  The overpayment he has just been advised of even though covers the same period. 

I am not sure there is a great deal more we can do on this but just wondered if anyone else has had any success getting the overpayments waived?

Thanks
Amanda

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

We have faced 100% flat refusal to help, even where DWP admits it is 100% at fault.

It has so far refused utterly to discuss the matter of discretion not to recover, and will never address the matter when we quote the words of one Chris Grayling MP when he was a minister, promising not to recover overpayments arising from official error, promising a Code of Conduct which never arrived (in the form described anyway - there was one, which ignored official error,  then that got axed).

DWP drones on about public money, duty to the taxpayer, all the time refusing to acknowledge that claimants are members of the public and taxpayers.

There is no penalty against DWP for making mistakes, so, knowing that, it just keeps on making them.

We have some cases with ICE and with MPs.

Holding of breath not recommended.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Andrew Dutton - 17 March 2022 04:52 PM

It has so far refused utterly to discuss the matter of discretion not to recover, and will never address the matter when we quote the words of one Chris Grayling MP when he was a minister, promising not to recover overpayments arising from official error, promising a Code of Conduct which never arrived (in the form described anyway - there was one, which ignored official error,  then that got axed).

I wonder if your cases are included in the 91 total requests for waiver received last year…

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 958

Joined: 24 November 2017

Andrew Dutton - 17 March 2022 04:52 PM

There is no penalty against DWP for making mistakes, so, knowing that, it just keeps on making them.

Absolutely, no incentive for them to make more of an effort to get things right first time.

mand74
forum member

Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund

Send message

Total Posts: 33

Joined: 2 November 2011

Thank you I suspected as much.  Our client has even struggled to get the DWP to acknowledge his waiver request so I doubt it’s in the ‘official’ stats. Very frustrating and stressful for our client too.  Thank you

Magda
forum member

Tenancy support/VIVID (previously First Wessex)

Send message

Total Posts: 2

Joined: 26 September 2017

My case is one of the waivers rejected and the reason I requested FOI (link already in this thread).
1) Waiver process is very poor
When I called the Debt management team to ask about the waiver the response was ‘they never heard of it’. There is no information about the waiver on the overpayment decision letter, unless claimant approaches an organisation which knows about the waiver, they would never know this exists. It wasn’t until Judicial review threat DWP agreed to look at the waiver. And it was just to make up numbers of their own to dismiss financial hardship- using incorrect student income and UC amount, non-essential expenditure on bank statement like Netflix- £10 per month was given as an example, the budget was in deficit of about £100! Even if they removed non-essential items they listed the budget was still in deficit. They never responded to our questions about their reasoning and figures they used.
So even if you get DWP to look at the waiver the chances are it will be rejected.

2)Official error and protecting taxpayer money
Official error overpayments are recoverable and I agree this leads to poor decision making by DWP as there is no accountability for mistakes.
The majority of people claiming UC are on a low income and would struggle to repay any overpayments. They often would resort to a debt solution and include benefit overpayments in it- the taxpayer money DWP wants to protect is gone! And it started with a DWP mistake in many cases.

The current system does the opposite to protecting the taxpayer money. Instead, it promotes a culture of no consequences which results in high level of errors, and it pushes claimants to debt solutions (because waiver process is so poor it is hardly ever applied) making it impossible for DWP to recover the overpayment they caused- this is wasting taxpayer money.

The case is currently with ICE.

update 5/9/23- SUCCESS!

ICE awarded £400 compensation but has done nothing about the overpayment debt.
PLP Emma and Niamh have taken the case and won after sending PAP- thank you PLP and the two lovely ladies who have done amazing work gathering all the info and challenging this. Not for the first time- this might be helpful to other advisers- https://publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/dwp-acted-unlawfully-in-seeking-to-recover-8k-of-clients-debt-accrued-through-own-error/

[ Edited: 5 Sep 2023 at 06:38 pm by Magda ]
Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1005

Joined: 9 January 2017

One of our client’s had one waived last year. But it took the threat of a JR.

Big thanks to the Public Law Project and CPAG for their expertise, help, and humanity.

Big thanks to our MP and principal secretary Jane too (and not for the first time)!

Talking of which the PLP and CPAG both ran an amazing day of training last week (waiver requests was one of the areas, NI Law Centre involved too).

Worth checking PLP’s learning portal on their website which has the stuff from the training last week and so so much more..

I digress, anyway the case in question was mindboggling mind blowing official error (that includes the entitlement as well as the overpayment decisions), we got the overpayment amount roughly halved at the MR stage and entitlement restored. 

At the next stage our MP Chris helped us, as a rule we bypass local DWP (doesn’t work for our clients) and we didn’t bother with the DWP debt either. For Overpayment waiver requests really really really can’t see the point.

MP went via regional complaints and to the relevant minister at that point Will Quince. Our MP asked for recovery to be waived 2 or 3 times, which was rejected.

Some extracts from our email to MP below

‘********** - UC overpayments caused by official error - DWP policy of rarely if ever waiving recovery is arguably set to such a high bar as to be virtually unattainable i.e. abdication of responsibility on the part of the DWP - https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-qUC overpayments caused by official error - policy of rarely if ever waiving recoveryuestions/detail/2019-06-27/270289 and https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-06-11/263064/

CUC/0050/2018 & CUC/0051/2018

Cause of universal credit overpayment irrelevant to its recoverability and no right to appeal against decision to recover

[2018] UKUT 332 (AAC)

https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/lp-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2018-ukut-332-aac

Judge Jacobs goes on to highlight that recoverability of overpayments under universal credit is governed by section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and that -

‘This is different from the law that previously applied to most social security benefits: liability does not depend on a claimant misrepresenting or failing to disclose. It is also different from the law that applies to housing benefit: liability does not depend on whether there has been an official error or whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that too much benefit was being paid. That means that a claimant is liable for an overpayment even it was caused by the Secretary of State.’ (paragraph 10).

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/welfare/110519/am/110519s01.htm

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 - see link to HOC, Hansard, 19 May 2011, col 1019

In that debate Chris Grayling made various statements on overpayment recovery, including this:

‘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’.

We think their is a very persuasive case for the DWP at a very senior level waiving recovery by applying HM Treasury Guidance on “Managing Public Money in *********** case.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835558/Managing_Public_Money__MPM__with_annexes_2019.pdf

For example - Annex 4.11 which sets out a number of arguments which might tend to mean recovery should not be pursued (hardship, accepting money in good faith, estoppel etc).

The principle in general is stated in the main body here:

4.7 Non-standard financial transactions

4.7.1 From time to time public sector organisations may find it makes sense to carry out transactions outside the usual planned range, eg:

• write-offs of unrecoverable debts or overpayments;

• recognising losses of stocks or other assets;

• long term loans or gifts of assets.

4.7.2 In each case it is important to deal with the issue in the public interest, with due regard for probity and value for money. Annexes 4.10 to 4.12 set out what is expected when such transactions take place in central government, including notifying parliament.

For the reasons above, arguably it would be wholly appropriate for a Senior DWP official / Minister to waive recovery of ******* UC overpayment amounting to £*****. Any help with the above would be really appreciated’.

Elliott ages ago in one of his Rightsnet posts mentioned blue moons and JR’s re: this subject matter. The blue moons bit in particular stuck. Thanks for the advice at the time Elliot!!!!!!!

Anyway the PLP got involved and got it waived late in the pre-action stage JR etc etc having done loads of work to persuade the DWP to whatever (Thanks Emma and Olivia et al)!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to remove amount.

 

 

 

[ Edited: 18 Mar 2022 at 02:20 pm by Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District ]
past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Like Andy, the only one I’ve succeeded with (though it is the only one I’ve pursued) took a threat of JR.

It was also one that involved both official error and no loss to the public purse; claimant in receipt of WTC and CTC for 3 kids, all born before April 2017. Client lost her job and tried to claim IS - this at a time when the UC software wasn’t up to managing 3 child claims so client should have had to claim IS. But was told expressly to claim UC and this was paid for a period of some 9 months. Overpayment created when UC discovered its error.

That the DWP should ever have contemplated recovery in these circumstances was an outrage, never mind the fact it took the PAP letter to get it to desist.

In some ways, and thinking about the wider interests of claimants, I wish they hadn’t have conceded and we’d gone to court…..