Forum Home → Discussion → Income support, JSA and tax credits → Thread
IUC
Hi,
Im putting this question in here, but not sure if it is the best thread.
Client came to see me today re DLA for her son, but in conversation, mentioned an IUC she attended at the beginning of April.
She is a single claimant of IS as a carer for her son, but is in contact with an ex partner. She recently had a baby with him, and DWP are implying that they are living as a couple. He lives with his parents, has all of his post sent to his parents address etc, and client says that he has no connection to her address.
She told me that the compliance officer told her that her ex partner MUST move in with her and he was giving her 2 weeks to move him in and report the changes, or they would pursue the matter and consider prosecution. He is not working, has no benefit claims and is being supported by his parents. Moving him in wouldn’t cause any overpayments of benefit etc. Client is actually ok with her partner moving in, but feels that she is being pressured in to it. This is the 2nd case of this nature ive had in the last 12 months.
Just wondering if anybody has come across this? how common is it for compliance to make demands like this (or how likely is it that they would make these comments). Is there any action that can be taken? I suggested possibly trying to get a copy of the recording, but not sure how much use this would be.
It depends how much was lost in translation. Were those the actual words used or simply the client’s interpretation? Of course there is no question of the DWP having any power to force anyone to live together or for punishing them for refusing to do so. The sole question for decision is, do the people actually live together as a couple? This involves deciding whether they share a common household. These are questions of fact to be decided on the basis of all the circumstances and evidence.
And, as you say, even if they have been living together and he has not claimed then where’s the overpayment? And if there is no overpayment where’s the basis for a prosecution? Could be a case of the compliance officer throwing his weight around and you might consider making an official complaint if you can make a convincing case that he has been acting inappropriately.
Sometimes I find in cases like this that the partner who does not live there is either paying for something there or has a contract there in his/her name, typically Sky, or a mobile phone, or similar. Often one person can’t get a contract for reasons of credit history or whatever but the absent partner can and does so never realising that Big Brother is watching.
This seemed to have been the trigger for an investigation into the living arrangements in a couple of cases I have seen.
I received a phone call from an ex schoolmate in Newcastle 6 months ago for the very same reason.
Identical circumstances
She was petrified because the DWP on the phone said she must finish with her boyfriend (who doesnt live with her), get him to move in with her or face prosecution.
Boyfriend has his own place 10 miles away, and she stays with him on a saturday night when her ex has her daughter over.
No LTAMAW in any way shape or form
The guy from Income Support said it wasnt the states job to keep her, and he didnt give a monkeys where her boyfriend lived. He should move in with her or they should split up.
They also said “on this occasion we will let you off, and not prosecute”
I went ballistic. She has broken no laws at all yet they kept banging on about prosecuting her.
I told her if she had broken benefit law they would have prosecuted her immediately, and they werent being kind by “letting her off”
I was incensed by such blatant bullying.
It appears that the DWP training must include watching reruns of benefit Street for their staff to have such attitudes.
Unfortunately she didnt get the guys details, otherwise a rather large complaint would have followed. She was in tears and petrified.
[ Edited: 21 Apr 2015 at 04:27 pm by benefitsadviser ]And, as you say, even if they have been living together and he has not claimed then where’s the overpayment? And if there is no overpayment where’s the basis for a prosecution?
If, as I read it, she’s claiming IS as a carer of her older disabled son, then yes. But if on the basis of being a lone parent (and the o/p isn’t precise enough to rule this out) then there would be a problem - reg. 13 of the POAR Regs wouldn’t assist.
But to the main issue. The lack of logic with this type of legalised bullying never ceases to amaze me. How is it possible to insist he moves in with her within a fortnight? He’s surely already there?
I would be very tempted to write to the compliance officer/team, stating that she was confused by the interview and what is it exactly they wish her to do - could they please confirm their instructions in writing and the reasons for requesting this? - i.e. play dumb and hope they mug themselves off. Perhaps better prospects of them commiting themselves to this nonsense in writing if the letter came from her…...
Scandalous!!
Brings this to mind : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/suing_the_dwp
You never know, if it leads to, or could have led to a loss of benefit then someone can be held accountable.
It is definitely IS as a carer, not as a lone parent, so im not concerned about the prospect of any overpayment. Thankfully we have the guys name (he kindly put it on the envelope for he to return her forms). I’m tempted to the recording of the interview and see exactly what has been said.
There is always the risk that something has been lost in translation. I guess listening to the interview is the only way that we can be sure of what was said.
Thank for all your replies. very useful. If anything more comes of it, il let you know.
We’ve come across exactly the same scenario on a fairly regular basis. It seems to go in phases- we’ll get 2 or 3 examples in a row and then nothing for months. Last time I encountered it the client concerned was more than capable of standing up for herself and I think the DWP rather regretted having attempted to take her on. Having checked the legal position with us she went storming off to her MP and raised a right old stink about it.
Have also come across this periodically. Rarely find that much has been lost in translation. Agree with all the above posts. However, I would do two things:
1) Request the typed transcript of the IUC.
2) Talk through the IUC with the claimant. I’ve come across cases where the interviewing officers have exactly the above conversation but outside the confines of the IUC i.e. before recording begins or after it has ended. Apologies if you’ve clarified this with the claimant already.
As an aside, currently dealing with a case where JC+ argument is that there are no grounds for review/revision on the basis of an error of law because of their non-compliance with PACE during an IUC. They have put in black and white that “The Decision Maker is not bound by the guidelines in PACE as these rules apply only to criminal prosecutions.”
The flaw in this genius argument is that the claimant was induced to sign up for an admin. penalty or face prosecution and the interview in question was an IUC and therefore covered by PACE.”
A compliance officer tried telling my ex-missus the same thing.
He was a bit sheepish on the phone afterward ;-)
I dealt with the funniest LTAHW decision makers submission that i’ve ever seen last week - tax credit one. The DM had used commissioners decisions from the 80’s and quoted from the supplementary benefit handbook of that time and actually said in their reasoning…and i quote…“when two people have shared responsibiity for a child of their union there is a strong presumption that they are LTAHW”
How we laughed :D
The appeal was a success for the client as it was absolutely obvious that they were not even still together let alone LTAHW but decision makers writing such rubbish decisions as this certainly made the job easier.
I dealt with the funniest LTAHW decision makers submission that i’ve ever seen last week - tax credit one. The DM had used commissioners decisions from the 80’s and quoted from the supplementary benefit handbook of that time and actually said in their reasoning…and i quote…“when two people have shared responsibiity for a child of their union there is a strong presumption that they are LTAHW”
How we laughed :D
The appeal was a success for the client as it was absolutely obvious that they were not even still together let alone LTAHW but decision makers writing such rubbish decisions as this certainly made the job easier.
And so we come full circle. Anyone remember ringing up their offices and quoting the law at them or asking them to look at the law only to be greeted with “We don’t keep the law here” or (my personal faves) “If I thought we needed to know the law I’d have trained in it” and (better still) “The Law? What on earth makes you think we have anything to do with THAT!”(special thanks to the Benefits Agency in Rhyl for that one!)?
Here we are 30 years later and mysteriously they have not only found the Supplementary Benefit handbooks (presumably a bit like how the TS found those SDP cases in the toilets) but they understand what they mean and are happy to quote from them.
I look forward to ESA medical reports once again using the words “handicapped” and “crippled”.
I keep waiting for them to suggest clients can be models or lift attendents…..oh the good ole days!
I never had models; always petrol pump attendants.
I was always getting ‘billiard table maker’ but my very favourite was the client with learning difficulties, one lung and a chronic back condition who was given ‘deep sea diver’....
Oxon always had a high demand for egg graders (but never chicken sexers), lift attendants and gate keepers.