Good morning

One of the themes I regularly highlight in these bulletins is that persuading DWP to overturn an incorrect decision is often only half the challenge. The other half is ensuring it implements the revised decision promptly and sensibly. A recent case provides a perfect example. To protect confidentiality, I will refer to the claimant as Mr W.

The Original Dispute

Mr W is a vulnerable claimant with significant physical and mental health conditions. Following migration from Housing Benefit to Universal Credit, DWP refused to award the Housing Costs Element (HCE) on the basis that his tenancy with a family-connected landlord was allegedly non-commercial and “contrived”. The decision was fundamentally flawed.

The claimant had occupied the property for many years, had paid rent throughout the tenancy, had previously received Housing Benefit on the same basis and, crucially, the tenancy arrangements pre-dated Universal Credit itself. Despite this, DWP maintained the refusal.

After reviewing the evidence, I advised DWP that the decision was unlikely to withstand scrutiny if properly challenged and published a members’ bulletin explaining why the Department’s position appeared legally unsustainable. An appeal was submitted to HMCTS.

Exactly What We Predicted Happened

Several months later, DWP effectively conceded the case. HMCTS notified us that the Department had changed its decision in the claimant’s favour, resulting in closure of the appeal.

At that point, I contacted my client and explained that he should shortly receive a revised decision notice together with details of the arrears due.

As most advisers would expect, once an appeal has been conceded and entitlement accepted, implementation should normally be a relatively straightforward administrative exercise. Unfortunately, that is not what followed.

The Unexpected Twist

Instead of simply implementing the revised decision using the evidence already available, DWP advised that the claimant must now:

  • Report a “change of circumstances” on his Universal Credit account.
  • Declare his housing costs again.
  • Input an effective date going back to the start of the claim.
  • Wait while the information is verified before backdating can be processed. This is even though:
  • Housing costs were declared from the outset.
  • The tenancy was the subject of the appeal.
  • The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement plus a letter from the landlord had already been supplied.
  • DWP had accepted that housing costs should be awarded from the beginning of the claim.

In simple terms, the claimant is being asked to report a “change” that is not actually a change. It’s no less than, a correction of DWP’s avoidable error.

Why This Matters

Some may see this merely as an administrative inconvenience. For this claimant, it is much more than that. Throughout the dispute, he worried about his ability to maintain his tenancy. He continued paying rent despite the refusal of housing costs and accumulated financial pressure in the process. The prolonged uncertainty caused considerable anxiety.

When the appeal succeeded, he understandably believed the ordeal was finally over. Instead, he now faces further delays and additional procedural requirements before receiving money that DWP has already accepted should have been paid from the start. For a claimant who struggles with digital processes and suffers from both physical and mental health problems, this creates another layer of stress which could have been entirely avoided.

Final Thoughts

The disappointing aspect of this case is not merely that the original decision was wrong. Decision makers make mistakes and appeals exist to correct them. The concern is that even after DWP accepted the claimant was entitled to housing costs; further obstacles were placed in the path of implementation. For vulnerable claimants, delay can be almost as damaging as the original adverse decision.

As advisers, we must therefore remember an important lesson: Success at appeal is not always the end of the journey. Sometimes securing proper implementation becomes the next battle. Unfortunately, this case demonstrates exactly why.

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

Telephone 07733 080 389