Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Enhanced Review Team
I have a client at mercy of the enhanced review team; a lone mother of young kids, including a 15 month old baby.
They have decided that she is not entitled to HCE- we are at appeal stage about this.
But from mid-June they have not released any money to her- despite guidance stating that “the suspension is only applied to the part of the award in doubt” (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/suspension-and-termination-of-benefits-staff-guide/suspension-and-termination-guide#period-and-amount-of-suspension)
Now they are claiming that other parts of the award are also investigated; but they won’t say what parts and why.
I submitted- and escalated- a complaint, I wrote to the MP, all to no avail.
I have previously had quite traumatising encounters with the Enhanced Review Team- they are a bit of a law unto themselves. Now, that the DWP has migrated too many claimants onto UC without building sufficient back office capacity, which resulted in this unacceptable delay, I am stuck how to take it further. There seems to be no authority over this team.
Ideally I would like to speak to any journalists or researchers who are looking into the scandal of how the Enhanced Review Team operates. The issue is not of the scrutiny itself- which is essential- but the delays and the opaque way this team operates.
An analysis of the DWP Risk Review team was made by the CPAG a couple of years ago.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110055/html/
I am currently in the process of a protracted complaint involving the Enhanced Review Team, in relation to a PIP decision. Their work seems to be shrouded in secrecy, as if they can make decisions without being transparent about the legal basis of those decisions. They asked my client to provide some further evidence about his PIP in 2023, and when he failed to supply it (he did actually supply it, but that’s another story), they then terminated his claim…from 2016! And created an overpayment going back to 2016.
When they realised that he had in fact supplied the information, and when we supplied evidence about the severity of his disabilities, they revised the decision and his claim has been reinstated.
But they still stood by their decision-making process as being ‘procedurally correct’, had they not misplaced the evidence he was asked to provide.
They are now trying to claim that it would have been lawful to terminate the claim from 2016 (had the claimant actually failed to supply the evidence in 2023), because the 2016 decision was made based on a mistake as to a material fact. And that material fact was his failure to supply evidence in 2023. So yes, you read that right, the 2016 was made in ignorance of something that (purportedly) happened 7 years later. Therefore, so the argument goes, the claimant failed to disclose a material fact (in 2023) which meant that the overpayment (going back to 2016) was recoverable.
I am obviously pursuing the complaint. Can I ask, are you in touch with the complaints team via email? If not, I have a few addresses that might be of use to you and might get you quicker and more meaningful responses. If you direct message me, I can share these with you. Even if they don’t work for your area, they might be a foot in the door to get some better contacts.
They are now trying to claim that it would have been lawful to terminate the claim from 2016 (had the claimant actually failed to supply the evidence in 2023), because the 2016 decision was made based on a mistake as to a material fact. And that material fact was his failure to supply evidence in 2023. So yes, you read that right, the 2016 was made in ignorance of something that (purportedly) happened 7 years later. Therefore, so the argument goes, the claimant failed to disclose a material fact (in 2023) which meant that the overpayment (going back to 2016) was recoverable.
Complete nonsense of course but you may find it helpful to refer to the recent decision in RA v SSWP (UC) [2024] UKUT 207 (AAC) which deals with a similar species of ‘re-verification’ nonsense. Judge Wright has some choice words.
Judge Wright has some choice words.
Only made it to paragraph 8 and it’s already pretty good!
As will become apparent, but is worth emphasising at this stage, as a matter of law ‘suspending the claim’ in the context of the facts of this case and then ‘closing’ the claim are both legal nonsense. And, if I may say so, this ought to be apparent to anyone charged with making social security decisions.
Thanks Elliot, I did in fact send a copy of this very decision with the last letter of complaint, it was like it was tailor-made for my case so the timing was very fortuitous. Procedurally what had happened in RA v SSWP mirrored what had gone on for my client, albeit in the context of UC rather than PIP (but of course the Decisions and Appeals Regs are the same ones).
I am obviously pursuing the complaint. Can I ask, are you in touch with the complaints team via email? If not, I have a few addresses that might be of use to you and might get you quicker and more meaningful responses. If you direct message me, I can share these with you. Even if they don’t work for your area, they might be a foot in the door to get some better contacts.
I have used the https://makeacomplaint.dwp.gov.uk/ portal and received responses via Journal, so did not need to use the correspondence@ address.
These are my issues with the Enhanced Review Team:
- they invite contact but are un-contactable. When client calls UC, they are actually never put through to this team
- they call client without giving advance notice (UC normally send text message so client knows when to expect a call- but not the review team, oh no, they are far too hoity toity)
- this leads to a vicious circle of missed calls, unsuccessful callbacks and heaps of anxiety.
- withholding whole payment, instead of only a portion of it (if it is investigated)
- shoddy decision making process.
One of the most egregious examples of this in my client’s case is the way decision has been made regarding her childcare expenses contributions. The review team called her few times during the day, few minutes in between the calls. Client did not expect the call, was in teacher-parent conference so did not pick up. Then she got a message in her Journal; “we recently asked you for information about your childcare costs” (the sheer cheek!) and a decision notice, disallowing the childcare costs. No reasons given- simply “your evidence was insufficient”. Client submits monthly invoices from OFSTED-registered childcare provider so no one knows the actual reason- making it really hard to challenge. we can ask for WSOR (and I did) but this will take weeks, if not months.
Another lovely example: client has pre-settled status plus she works. But yesterday she received HRT decision- failed it. Explanation? None in the decision notice but in her Journal it states: “A detailed consideration of your factual circumstances has concluding that nothing prevents you from working at this time. Even if you are currently not working, you are not exempt”
WHAT?
Funny thing is, a day before the HRT decision popped up, we gave UC share code so they can confirm her PSS themselves.
This client, a single mum of 5, the youngest of whom is 15 months old, has been employed since September 2023 (so when her baby was still practically a newborn) because she knows that with PSS she is only eligible for benefits if she has another R2R.
And UC had RTI of her wages for nearly a year now…
And if they take away her childcare costs contribution, she won’t be able to work at all…
I am now seeing it as either a harassment, or someone really, really unexperienced being let loose on a vulnerable claimant (person of colour, limited English, some children with health issues).
This is because few weeks ago they took away her housing costs element (of course without explaining which eligibility criteria have not been satisfied), then they took away her childcare, and yesterday they said she failed HRT.
I hope someone from DWP is reading it and, despite their hardened skin, hangs their head in shame.
An analysis of the DWP Risk Review team was made by the CPAG a couple of years ago.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110055/html/
Thanks mate. I see nothing has changed since 2022
Just posted this - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/20520/ - let me know if you’re interested - chance to vent your frustrations??
let me know if you’re interested
I must have manifested it :D
There are a couple of BBC Social Affairs journalists who might be interested if you want to follow through.
Usually helps to have a number of cases across country but doubt that would be too hard to find.
Can message you contact details if that helps
The Enhanced Review Team DM has now provided explanation why my client failed HRT. Apparently it is because her employment is not “genuine and effective”.
Client, who is pre-settled, has been employed for more that a year, works on average 16 hours a week, has provided payslips.
I am baffled. I am struggling to think who on Earth could have made a decision like this. This scenario comfortably satisfies HRT requirements, right?
I have seen quite a few of these. They will probably be arguing that the job is a fake job.