Good morning

A disabled claimant found himself homeless and destitute as a direct result of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) administrative shortcomings, apparent lack of understanding and empathy towards vulnerable individuals.

I was approached recently by a 58-year-old man, desperate for help after becoming homeless and penniless, and unable to make headway with the Universal Credit enquiries line in his efforts to have his Universal Credit award reinstated. Through a series of emails and phone calls, I discovered that he suffers from Bipolar Personality Disorder (BPD), among other conditions, and has been receiving Universal Credit since 2019.

In June 2024, his award was reviewed, and he was instructed to supply both bank statements and proof of identity to support the continuation of his benefit. Despite providing his bank details—which should have sufficed for identification—his Universal Credit was first suspended on 14 June, then terminated a week later, on 21 June 2024, because he had failed to reproduce an acceptable form of ID, even though he had provided this at the start of his claim in 2019.

It was not until September 2025, more than fourteen months later, that a First-tier Tribunal Judge overturned the decision. The Judge noted in his decision notification: “The Secretary of State (SoS) had not specified what was missing and had not explained why the documents provided did not meet the required standards… and the SoS did not have grounds to terminate Mr X’s award based on a failure to provide information.”

Understandably, my client was overjoyed by the Judge’s ruling, believing he could finally secure accommodation and resume receiving Universal Credit payments. Yet, instead of reinstating his award, the DWP requested a “full statement” from the Judge—a more detailed justification for overturning its decision—as it considered an appeal on a “point of law”. While the DWP is entitled to pursue such a course, it should not use it as a pretext to delay reinstating Mr X’s benefit, particularly after he has been unjustly deprived of income and housing for such a prolonged period. As things stand, he continues to live on the streets, forced to wash in public amenities and depend on charity shops for clean clothes.

Judge Wright, in an Upper Tribunal case, highlighted a comparable situation involving a claimant who applied for Universal Credit in March 2020 and was required to provide proof of identity. In paragraph 23, Judge Wright stated: “To put it another way, the appellant’s alleged failure after 17 May 2021 to provide information to verify his identity could not, in itself, lawfully justify ending his entitlement to universal credit.” 

Regrettably, today’s DWP Decision Makers appear inexperienced and unaware of this crucial decision, which is binding on DWP. The Judge was also highly critical of the department’s mishandling of similar cases where it fails to recognise the difference between ongoing awards, like Mr X’s, as opposed to newly made “claims”.

In recent weeks, I have persistently urged the DWP Group Director to intervene and put an end to the department’s excessive bureaucracy and unwarranted delays. While he has been consistently helpful, he is clearly dependent on staff who lack the necessary expertise and seem bewildered by the situation, akin to a rabbit caught in headlights.

No one should have to endure such hardship due to avoidable administrative obstacles. It is hoped that, early next week, a long-overdue resolution will finally be reached. Regrettably, this scenario is regularly being played out throughout the GB but especially in the south of England where decision-making is desperately poor. Almost every referral I make is resolved in favour of the claimant but only after lengthy exchanges.

If you need clarification on any point or are experiencing problems of a similar nature with client tenants, please email bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

www.ucadvice.co.uk