Good morning

This briefing is based on a complaint email I recently sent to Stephen Timms MP. It’s aimed at all of you—landlords, welfare rights officers, money advisors, and anyone else working in social, private, or voluntary sectors who deal with the DWP and use mandates to represent tenants or landlord clients.

You’ll recognise the scenario: you get a mandate, signed by your client, authorising your appointment as representative, and attach this to your letter/email, and address it to a DWP Practice Manager seeking a review of your client’s case. In the past, this was invariably accepted by DWP, but since the creation of DWP’s “Enhanced Review” processes, its staff is increasingly trying to distance representatives by encouraging claimants to communicate via their journal. By doing so, DWP aims to reduce disputes moving to Mandatory Reconsideration and Appeals, causing claimants to invariably lose out in the process.

Frankly, I find their actions in this case not just obstructive but downright unlawful and am seeking advice on pursuing Judicial Review.

We all know how crucial it is to have proper access and support, especially for vulnerable claimants like Mr X, who is facing eviction and serious health issues. The DWP’s refusal to communicate, even after repeated verification, makes our jobs next to impossible and puts people at real risk. I believe it’s important to shine a light on this kind of behaviour so others are aware and can push back if they face similar blocks.

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you regarding a grave matter of administrative negligence and procedural obstruction by the DWP Group Director’s office. This involves a terminally ill, 65-year-old claimant, Mr X, who suffers from oxygen-dependent pulmonary fibrosis and is currently facing eviction due to DWP errors.

I was asked by Mr X’s landlord to intervene as his tenant had accrued rent arrears of £7,000. While the landlord is sympathetic to Mr X’s terminal condition, he cannot sustain such a debt indefinitely. Mr X advised me that his Housing Costs Element was ended by the DWP nearly one year ago, without adequate explanation. As a recognised expert in this field, I identified that a “revision” of the case would likely secure the backdated entitlement, offset the arrears and protect the tenancy. To facilitate this, Mr X signed a formal mandate appointing me as his representative. Ironically, the mandate was approved by no less than DWP in 2013.

For 13 years, as Director of Universal Credit Advice & Advocacy Ltd, I have successfully represented thousands of claimants nationwide, usually resolving disputes without recourse to the First-tier Tribunal. My professional history—serving as a local government advisor to the Housing Benefit Standing Committee. Westminster and tutor for the Chartered Institute of Housing on benefit related matters—is well known to the DWP’s Director General and various Group Directors. While I generally maintain constructive relationships with the Department, the offending management team has, on this occasion, engaged in a blatant attempt to impede my advocacy and obfuscate past errors.

Procedural Malpractice and Safeguarding Risks

  1. Despite receiving a valid, signed mandate, the DWP bypassed me to telephone Mr X—who struggles to speak due to his respiratory condition—to “confirm” my appointment. They then took the extraordinary step of contacting his landlord to verify the signature on the mandate. Having double-verified my authority through these invasive means, there is no lawful or procedural basis for the DWP to withhold information.
  2. A Customer Service Leader telephoned me today to state that, despite their own verification, they would not disclose information regarding the missing Housing Costs, claiming they “had done nothing wrong.” He further refused to provide this decision in writing. This is a direct violation of the DWP’s Alternative Enquiry Disclosure provisions and a blatant attempt to frustrate the revision and appeal process.
  3. Staff attempted to mandate an in-person Jobcentre meeting with a “Work Coach” for this 65-year-old, housebound, oxygen-dependent man. This is a flagrant failure to provide Reasonable Adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and represents a significant safeguarding risk to a dying man. 

Requested Action

By refusing to engage with an authorised expert, the DWP is actively undermining my attempt to assist the tenant, protect the tenancy and avoid the possibility of Mr X being exposed to the vagaries of homelessness. I seek your urgent intervention to:

  • Ensure the immediate recognition of my mandate.
  • Secure a full written explanation and breakdown of the Housing Costs Element status.
  • Ensure the reinstatement of the element and the payment of all arrears to the landlord to halt eviction proceedings.

I await your urgent response.”

I’ll keep you posted on what happens to this poor gentleman as things develop—watch this space for an update. Contact bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 0773 080 389 if you need advice or clarification on this or any of our bulletins

Regards

 

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd