Good afternoon

The issue outlined below is a recurring theme in the Universal Credit (UC) journals of thousands of tenant claimants across England, and to a lesser extent in Scotland & Wales. This is evident from the numerous emails received from landlord clients. The rejection of “housing costs” occurs both during the initial claim process and revisions carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) “Enhanced Review Team”. Over the past three years, I have dealt with hundreds of such disputes. While I am invariably able to secure awards for my clients, the process can take months due to the DWP’s persistent delays and mishandling.

The following anonymised case exemplifies the challenges faced by claimants and landlords:

“Dear Director

Your Northern Ireland office responded to the email I sent to you yesterday. Normally, I’d be delighted by such a timely reply, but read on, as it states:

“Anoop,

A mandatory reconsideration has been raised regarding the housing that was rejected. You can add the housing costs again and provide more evidence if you wish to try to claim housing costs again. Regards, Jason”

In this instance, Jason, the author, rejected my request for a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) and reaffirmed the DWP’s previous decision. He requested evidence of housing costs to be resubmitted for the fourth time, yet did not explain why this was necessary. Contrary to Jason’s view and that of many of his colleagues, it is not appropriate to reject a claim solely because the evidence is deemed “insufficient” without a rationale explanation. When an MR is submitted, the correct procedure is to issue an MR Notice in response and fully explain the decision maker’s (DM’s) position. This enables the claimant to exercise their right to appeal and address specific concerns. On occasions when I’ve asked for an explanation, I’m told they can’t say why, which is ridiculous.

This problem occurs repeatedly, as described in my article “DWP is creating a habit of raising the white flag to avoid tribunal embarrassment”. Clients are often asked multiple times to provide copies of tenancy agreements, council tax, utility bills, and confirmation of occupation. Despite supplying this evidence, it is frequently rejected without any explanation. In some cases, referral to the Tribunal Service is necessary to compel DMs to reconsider their position and concede DWP’s indefensible position.

Additionally, I have raised concerns about my role as a representative being overlooked, particularly problematic when claimants face language barriers or mental health issues. In this example, Jason ignored my right as the claimant’s representative to receive a copy of the DWP’s response. Instead, I was notified only through the claimant’s landlord. Welfare Rights and Financial Inclusion staff also complain about experiencing the same issues.

To reiterate, the rejection of a claimant’s entitlement to housing costs is an adjudication issue, not a complaint. DWP passes cases of this nature to inexperienced “complaints” staff. Such matters require attention from an experienced DM to avoid the chaos and anxiety previously described, as the next step is a Tribunal hearing months later. Meanwhile rent arrears escalate causing increased tenant anxiety.

I expect the Director in question, who is generally prompt in responding, to delegate the reply to a subordinate. I will provide updates as the situation develops.

If you are experiencing similar difficulties, please contact me on 07733 080 389 or email bill@ucadvice.co.uk for assistance.

Regards,

Bill Irvine

www.ucadvice.co.uk

Tel: +447733 080 389 or +441698 424301

@Billirvine17