Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC claim - doesn’t fit Gateway but being processed (?)
I’d like to check I’ve thunk this through correctly.
Client was working and getting CTC (child age 19 in FT education). becomes unemployed, goes to JC+ to claim JSA but is told to claim UC.
The claim does not fit the Gateway but is being processed - payment apparently due May 6th. CTC has stopped.
As far as I can see, the DM can stop the UC claim (and CTC can be re-applied for) should the DM spot that it is a non-Gateway claim - providing this is done before UC goes in to payment.
Should UC actually start to make payments, the claim stays as UC.
My reference is Gateway conditions Guidance Chapter M3 which in turn refers to
WR Act 2012(Commencement order No 9 etc) Order 3(2)(a)
3A(21(a) TC Claims and notifications Regs 02
WR Act 2012(Commencement order No 9 etc) Order 3A(2)(d)(i)
Thoughts?
No thoughts on the gateway conditions themselves, but when would the CTC have ended i.e. when is child due to leave education or turn 20?
If its in the near future, then could UC actually be a better benefit for your client? I’m thinking of the more generous earnings disregards and the different rules for non-dependents.
....but an even more tricksy Claimant Commitment, more severe sanctions rules even when in work and other disadvantages; plus once on UC the client is ‘lobster-potted’ and could also fall foul of surplus income rules etc etc at a later date . I don’t think that people should be bounced into UC when they don’t have to be. CTC would end next year in this case, and appears to have stopped purely because of the UC claim. Which seems paradoxical when receipt of CTC is a clear sign that the claimant does not meet the gateway conditions.
I think you’re right, Andrew.
The provisions re “incorrect information” about meeting gateway or residing in a relevant district were amended at least 3 times during 2014.
As far as I can tell, for most claims from July 2014, the version of article 3A substitued by reg 4(4) of SI2014/1923 is the current one.
( see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1923/article/4/made )
I’ve quoted the relevant bits..
“Incorrect information regarding residence in a relevant district or meeting the gateway conditions”
3A.—(1) This article applies where a claim for universal credit is made and it is subsequently discovered that the single claimant or either or both of two joint claimants gave incorrect information regarding his or her (or their) residing in one of the relevant districts or meeting the gateway conditions and the conditions referred to in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to are that, on the date on which the claim was made, the claimant—
(a)did not reside in one of the relevant districts (unless paragraph (3) applies); or
(b)did reside in one of the relevant districts but did not meet the gateway conditions.
(3) This paragraph applies where the claimant resided in an area apart from the relevant districts with respect to which the provisions of the Act referred to in Schedule 2 were in force in relation to a claim for universal credit and the conditions (if any) that applied to such a claim, for those provisions to come into force, were met.
(4) Where the discovery is made before the claim for universal credit has been decided—
(a)the claimant is to be informed that the claimant is not entitled to claim universal credit;
(b)(c)(d) [provision for backdating legacy claims]
(5) Where the discovery is made after a decision has been made that the claimant is entitled to universal credit, but before any payment has been made—
(a)that decision is to cease to have effect immediately, by virtue of this article;
(b)the claimant is to be informed that they are not entitled to claim universal credit; and
(c)[provision for backdating legacy claims].”
Although it’s unhelpfully framed in terms of the *claimant* giving incorrect information I think you could argue if that the claimant in some sense passed on incorrect information (albeit provided by JCP!) - so (if they don’t want to go onto UC) it might be worth getting onto DWP asap so that 3A(5) applies.
Hi Jon - that’s certainly my approach. We’ll see what develops.
At operational stakeholders today they confirmed that if you gets as far as a UC payment being made there is no going back even if you shouldn’t have been put on it!
At operational stakeholders today they confirmed that if you gets as far as a UC payment being made there is no going back even if you shouldn’t have been put on it!
I guess that is because they don’t really think it possible for a payment to be made unless the claimant gives incorrect information. Amusing that they discount the possibility of DWP error leading to the payment- must be confident in their own systems or something…
A claimant could potentially seek MR and then appeal against an award of UC if they contended that they had not given incorrect information.
Argument would be:
1. Claimant not a person who can make a claim for UC.
2. Therefore UC does not exist for that person.
3. Neither have old benefits ceased to exist for that person.
4. The decision to award UC was not one that could have been made and Tribunal should remake it to the effect that claimant not entitled- once claimant notified of that then they have one month to claim correct benefit and this will be treated as claimed from date on which originally claimed UC etc.