Good morning

In earlier bulletins, I highlighted the chaos and hardship caused by DWP’s “Risk Review” team. More recently, I have received several referrals concerning DWP’s “Enhanced Review” checks. These checks are causing Universal Credit to be unfairly refused at the point of claim, or existing awards to be retrospectively reduced or cancelled — in some cases unlawfully.

One such case involved a £10,000 overpayment demand. The demand arose after DWP cancelled an earlier award of “housing costs” for a two-bedroom property in London. DWP had awarded those costs in March 2022, when the young graduate first claimed Universal Credit, and continued paying them until January 2025, when she started full-time work — a change she duly reported at the time.

The problem arose one month after her award ended, when DWP asked her to provide validation documents. She supplied everything requested except her tenancy agreement, which had been misplaced, and explained this to DWP. Nevertheless, on 3rd March 2025, a Decision Maker cancelled the “housing element” back to the date of her original award. My client knew nothing of the problem until 14 months later, when DWP’s “Debt Management” team sent an Attachment of Earnings demand to her employer. Her employer’s HR department immediately confronted her, and she was stunned by the news.

Believing it was a mistake, she phoned DWP and spoke to an agent who could not explain how the overpayment had arisen but promised to investigate. DWP later emailed to say that my client’s journal had been restored, allowing her to access a letter dated 3rd March 2025 that had been posted there.

Importantly, the letter was never posted to my client at her home address, which is the conventional method of notification. I maintained that posting the letter only to a redundant journal, one month after my client’s award had ended, did not satisfy the Secretary of State’s obligations under Regulation 51 of the UC (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013. That also explained why she took no action until the matter was first raised by her employer.

My client sought a Mandatory Reconsideration, but DWP refused it on the basis that it was outside the absolute 13-month time limit. On the face of it, her appeal rights had lapsed. However, the delay in responding was entirely due to her not knowing that an alleged overpayment decision had been made.

I questioned DWP’s justification for creating the overpayment. The notification letter suggested that the overpayment had been caused by a “late notification of a change in circumstances”, when the only relevant change was my client’s move into full-time work, which she had reported. DWP acknowledged in its response that this was a mistake. The Decision Maker also dismissed the notion that a “revision” of her award had taken place. That was a surprising admission, as an overpayment cannot be created without revising earlier awards.

It is also well-established law that, when DWP suspends payment, as it did in this case in February 2025, any subsequent overpayment is limited to the period from the date of suspension unless DWP can identify a statutory ground, such as mistake or ignorance of a material fact. There is no authority to retrospectively “cancel” an element of the award that had previously been accepted as warranted.

I argued in a submission to a District Judge that the overpayment decision should be set aside because it had been incompetently raised and notified. In my view, that was possible under the UC Decisions and Appeals Regulations 2013 because the journal notification was ineffective: it had not been posted to my client’s address. I also argued that, because the decision to create the overpayment was seriously flawed, the Tribunal should assume jurisdiction and revise the decision on the basis that it was caused by official error.

I am pleased to say that DWP conceded after the District Judge issued a Directions Notice. My client no longer needs to repay the £10,000 and has received a refund from DWP for the £300 of wages previously arrested by her employer.

I dealt with this case on a no win, no fee basis. If you encounter anything like this, I recommend seeking advice and assistance from a Welfare Rights or Financial Inclusion service. Alternatively, if you cannot access such a service, contact bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389.