UC continue to pay pensioner

Hi All

I know this has come up a couple of different ways. We know that UC aren’t consistent in stopping UC when someone turns pension age. We have a client who decided to defer their state pension and continued to receive UC, none the wiser about the fact that it should have stopped. UC eventually figure it out and he claims pension etc etc.

He’s now been hit with a 13k overpayment which they’re aggressively recovering from his state pension amount.

My understanding is that an MR doesn’t have mileage, but challenging the recoverability might. Does anyone have any specifics that we can reference? We will be asking for a reduction in the rate of recovery regardless.

Thank you

When this came up in the past, DWP reassured us that they wouldn’t pursue O/P’s as obviously client will have lost out on PC by even larger amount. And don’t think we heard about any cases being chased.

Maybe strong complaint as this is maladministration on their part in my opinion and seek financial redress, as well as arguing with DWP Debt Recovery to use discretion to write off? Involve his MP as well perhaps?

I have found DWP absolutely resistant to the idea that it should waive an overpayment even where it is 100% DWP error. It insists it can recover any overpayment for any reason and goes on about public money etc.

They treat Ch 8 of the Benefits Overpayment Guide as the law, as opposed to guidance. Try to raise all points covered in here - 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#chapter-8

Also use the Debt Management address given, otherwise DWP will pretend you have not even asked for a waiver.

I have asked for factors to be taken into account that aren’t quite covered in the BORG – no.

Pointing out that the law allows complete discretion leads to said point being ignored.

The only one of these that I have seen then DWP wrote off the o/p. I seem to recall it took a letter before action for JR.

Thanks all for your thoughts.

I have seen one of these this morning. Client reached pension age in January 2024, NSP put into payment. UC continue to pay until June, taking NSP into account as “unearned income”. Payment only stopped when we pointed out on Cl’s journal that he had reached pension age.

Cl has now received notification of recoverable OVP (approx £1800), which DWP appear to be intent on recovering. I was considering an MP referral/FOI request along the lines of “How many people in total are DWP doing this to?” I now know it’s at least one!

How much did the taxpayer fork out for an “agile” IT system that is so “agile” that despite having the claimant’s date of birth, and despite factoring NSP into the UC calc as “unearned income”, it still can’t work out that they are pension age?

What a farce!

Can we enquire with stakeholders exactly from how many pensioners they are recovering overpayments that were entirely caused by their own maladministration?

What a disgrace!

How come it’s taken them this long to notice they have a problem?

[reposted below with somewhat better formatting]

The key issues in cases like this is that although in a technical sense the UC is overpaid then:

1. That is wholly down to official error to which claimant did not contribute (telling the DWP it is your birthday and you now 66 is not required as far as I can see- they know your date of birth and one would assume they understand that time rolls forwards…). Will be especially clear this the case if claimant told them about SRP being in payment.

2. Although the UC is overpaid, the claimant has failed to claim SPC - which would have been more. So really there is no loss to the public purse - rather a windfall.

Shouldn’t be a double windfall from recovery. In fact arguably the SSWP should pay the claimant the difference between SPC and UC….

If those points are made to the DWP in a request for waiver - and they still want to recover then it is time to get them referred to a public law solicitor to see about JR.

The Benefit Overpayment Recovery Guide at Chapter 8 lists factors they should consider.

8.6. Factors which may be relevant to a waiver decision are:

—- The debtor’s financial circumstances and those of their household

I guess this might not be relevant in a particular case of this sort but probably is

—-Whether the recovery of the debt is impacting the debtor’s health or that of their family

—-DWP conduct, including statements made by DWP, and the circumstances surrounding how the overpayment arose

Debt arose as DWP don’t understand how a calendar works…

—-The debtors conduct and whether the debtor took steps to mitigate any overpayment, contact or notify DWP, whether the debtor misrepresented or failed to disclose any matter, or if there was any fraudulent conduct etc

....difficult to see how the claimant has behaved poorly in a situation where they have lost out due to the DWP error

—-Whether the debtor has relied on the overpayment to their detriment

....would seem obvious they would have done

—-Whether the Department intended the claimant to have the money – for example where the claimant was paid the wrong benefit but could have claimed a different benefit and received the same amount of money

...This is particularly strong in these cases- they should have had more

—-Where the debtor can demonstrate that they did not benefit from the money that was paid

—-Any other factor which appears relevant to the decision maker, or which indicates recovery would not be in the public interest

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 26 September 2024 04:38 PM

When this came up in the past, DWP reassured us that they wouldn’t pursue O/P’s as obviously client will have lost out on PC by even larger amount. And don’t think we heard about any cases being chased.

Maybe strong complaint as this is maladministration on their part in my opinion and seek financial redress, as well as arguing with DWP Debt Recovery to use discretion to write off? Involve his MP as well perhaps?

I have picked up a further two of these cases this week, in both of which the DWP very much ARE pursuing recovery. The decision letters seek to blame the claimant for “failing to notify a change of circs” (ie: reaching pension age….something the “agile IT” at UC wasn’t agile enough to spot from the date of birth).  In one case, they continued to pay UC for 8 months while happily factoring in the client’s NSP, and still nobody spotted anything amiss!!!!!

I sense a JR coming on! I also want to know how many pensioners in total across the country are affected. (Perhaps stakeholder’s could shed some light on this, Daphne?) It is a major scandal that pensioners (often vulnerable) should be penalised for DWP maladministration. We should be shouting about this from the rooftops. It is comparable to the Post Office shenanigans.