Good morning

A vulnerable Universal Credit claimant has succeeded in a second appeal after the DWP repeated substantially the same error that had already led to an earlier Tribunal ruling in his favour. I agreed to represent him pro bono because he couldn’t secure help in his locality (London) and was homeless, living on the streets.

The case is a troubling example of a claimant being deprived of benefit twice, for lengthy periods, which should never happen, because the Department kept insisting on further identity evidence, despite having been supplied and accepted when it made the original award.

The first termination

Mr A had received Universal Credit since 2019 when he became sick and could no longer work. In June 2024, during a review of his award, DWP asked for bank statements and proof of identity. Although DWP verified his identity at the outset of the claim and he supplied bank information, it suspended, then terminated, his award from 21 June 2024 because he had not produced a form of ID DWP considered acceptable.

Mr A tried repeatedly to resolve matters. He communicated through his Universal Credit account, contacted DWP and attended its offices, but the Department remained transfixed on the need to see verifiable ID. His explanations and the fact that he had previously supplied identity evidence did not produce a practical solution.

The consequences were severe. Mr A became homeless and penniless, lived on the street for many months, washed in public toilets and relied on foodbanks and charitable assistance. His health deteriorated, and he was admitted to hospital. In September 2025, after more than a year without payment under that award, the First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal. DWP later decided not to challenge the ruling and paid £3,752.20 for the period 21 June to 12 September 2024.

The same problem arises again

Mr A had made a further claim in September 2024 and was paid under it until June 2025. During another review, DWP again required identity and other documents. Deadlines were extended and appointments offered, but the central difficulty remained: DWP would accept only specified current material, despite having already verified Mr A’s identity and his repeated efforts to engage. The award was closed with effect from 2 July 2025. Mr A was again left without Universal Credit until a new claim entered payment, while the disputed closure itself remained unresolved for some 15 months before the second Tribunal hearing.

The mandatory reconsideration upheld the closure, asserting that the correct process had been followed and that Mr A had ample opportunity to comply. He appealed again. On 2 October 2026, Judge MJ Reed allowed the appeal and set aside the termination decision.

Why the second termination was unlawful

The Tribunal found that DWP’s request did not comply with regulation 45 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013. Mr A had not been told that he could seek more time under regulation 45(4)(a) or explain under regulation 45(4)(b) that a requested document did not exist or could not reasonably be obtained. Without a compliant regulation 45 notification, the later termination under regulation 47 was “fatally flawed”.

The Judge noted that Mr A had won an earlier appeal arising from a very similar request for documents. He described it as “doubly unfortunate” that a public body had made fundamentally the same error in respect of the same person twice in short succession. He also identified a wider concern: DWP’s standard messages apparently fail to explain the alternatives in regulation 45(4)(b). The Department was invited to reconsider its standard documents and procedures.

The relevance of RA v SSWP

The approach is also difficult to reconcile with RA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2024] UKUT 207 (AAC). Judge Wright explained that, where an existing award is in payment, an alleged later failure to provide identity information cannot, by itself, lawfully justify ending entitlement. The distinction between deciding a new claim and revisiting an existing award is fundamental.

DWP’s suggestion that it disposed of earlier identity material raises a further concern. Whatever document-retention rules apply, the Department should retain an adequate record of the evidence originally examined and the basis on which identity was accepted. That history may be essential when maintaining an award and in any later overpayment or fraud investigations.

Practical points for advisers

  • Check the precise wording of every information request. Does it explain the claimant’s right to seek extra time and to show that a document does not exist or cannot reasonably be obtained?
  • Establish whether DWP is deciding a new claim or seeking to end an existing award. The legal routes are not interchangeable.
  • Obtain the history of the original identity verification and challenge any assumption that an existing award can be terminated merely because the claimant cannot reproduce the same or a preferred document years later. (Judge Wright decision).
  • Keep a clear record of journal entries, calls, office visits, documents offered and requests for reasonable extensions.
  • Where an appeal succeeds, press for prompt implementation and a transparent arrears calculation, while accounting for any payments under a later claim.

Comment

This was not a technical defect without consequence. Repeated failure to follow the statutory scheme deprived a vulnerable claimant of essential income, contributed to homelessness and serious ill health, and required two Tribunal appeals. The second decision should prompt an urgent review of DWP’s standard regulation 45 communications, its identity-verification recording, and its arrangements for identifying and supporting vulnerable claimants. You’ll recall I have raised these issues in earlier bulletins.

I plan to organise some future Zoom /Teams sessions addressing these important issues which can cause unecessary rent arrears.

Bill Irvine
UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd
www.ucadvice.co.uk

Phone 07733 080 389