Misunderstanding of Reg 19 of the (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, and a DWP person or more thinking that a 18-month review date for the W
Is it just our local Job centres and processing centre in the North of Ireland getting this wrong or is it elsewhere across the nation?
Misunderstanding of Reg 19 of the (Transitional Provisions) Regulations) 2014, and DWP people thinking that a 18-month review date for the WCA means an 18-month fixed period award.
So the UC LCWRA element does not apply and the client has to be referred for a WCA and obtain fit notes because the review date was e.g. set for 2020 advised the DWP.
We’ve had UCFS for several years - Dec 2017 in West Dorset. This is a basic plank of natural migration.
Is it just our local Job centres and processing centre in the North of Ireland getting the above very wrong or elsewhere across the nation?
have you got a decent partnership manager to bring this up with?
it is obviously wrong, so an mr/appeal when lcwra activity is not included
We resolved it by citing / attaching the following and Ccing the ACSSL, we had to intervene on behalf of another agency.
The actual intention /aspiration of the post was social policy orientated. To high light an example of systemic ongoing official error and maladministration that continues to bedevil UC.
In the hope that someone somewhere high up e.g. DWP or otherwise would see and….............
Thanks for the advice Vonny though.
Hi Andy, I have come across this issue a couple of times in the past up here, although not recently. Was frustrating but able to resolve, presumably claimants without access to advice will have had greater difficulty. I also get UC insisting that people start to provide fitnotes again when transferred from ESA with LCW/LCWRA from time to time.
We’ve come across this loads of times sadly.
This client did have advice. DWP rejected that advice complaining that it was wrong, impacting on client’s mental health , and scathing about the agencies involved including us.
This was an actual ‘safeguarding case’ that adds to my concerns because there was a lot of input.
Along with past precedents e.g. inpatients from local mental health units in Dorchester and Weymouth expected to attend job centre in Weymouth between at least 2017 - 2019.
Outside our catchment area but we made our feelings clear on this i.e. inhuman, immoral, unethical, unlawful (i.e. sections 6, 20 and 149 EA 2010), and awful waste of NHS resources with staff having to accompany and transport inpatients to jobcentre.
Back to this case. We were asked to intervene write an email stating the obvious Cced the ACSSL. That did have an effect and the advice was finally taken on board and acted upon.