Good morning

One of my landlord clients recently asked DWP to correct an error in its tenant’s housing costs, caused by the unwarranted application of a Non-dependent deduction (NDD). The tenant was a PIP (Daily Living) recipient and, as such, was entitled to have the usual NDD charge waived in respect of her 27-year-old son, who was working full-time. The PIP award had been reported to Universal Credit when it was granted nearly two years before. Despite that, DWP continued deducting around £90 pcm from her housing costs entitlement. DWP accepted its mistake after a few exchanges and paid the underpayment for 2 years.

The distinction between the backdating and revision of awards remains a critical concept in Universal Credit (UC) advice and support. Simply put, the term “backdating” relates to “new claims” and starting an award earlier than the date on which the claim was submitted. Revision concerns re-examining and fixing an omission or error on an award that has existed for some time.

  1. Backdating:

Backdating applies to new claims where the claimant requests their claim be awarded from a date earlier than the date on which they submitted the claim.

  • The Rule: You must prove you could not reasonably have been expected to claim on time due to the prescribed and limited grounds.
  • Key Grounds:
    • Severe illness or disability that physically prevented claiming.
    • Official system failures (e.g., the UC website was down).
    • Lack of notification that a previous benefit (like JSA or ESA) was ending.
  • Example: A single person is hospitalised for three weeks and cannot access a computer. They claim UC, for the first time, on the day they are discharged. They can request backdating for that period because their illness prevented the claim.
  1. Revision or Fixing a Mistake

A revision request is normally made by posting a request on the claimant’s journal or via Mandatory Reconsideration and is applied to an existing award where a Decision Maker (DM) reached the wrong conclusion by overlooking or misinterpreting an important piece of evidence.

  • Time Limit: Usually, revisions are sought within one month of the notified decision or within 12 months. Whereas, in cases of blatant official errors, requests are made much later, when the error is unearthed.
  • The Rule: If a decision was based on the DM overlooking information the claimant previously provided, it can be corrected back to the date the original (incorrect) decision was made, usually within 12 months of the decision. But in “official error” cases, the correction can be made retrospectively for periods exceeding 12 months. One such case, involving 16 months, can be found here. 
  • Example: A claimant mother advises DWP that her disabled son was awarded PIP (Daily Living), but the DM overlooks to include the “disabled child addition” in the monthly award. The claimant requests a revision. Once the error is confirmed, the DWP must pay the missing money for every month the award was underpaid.
  • I highlighted another good example of this when Albyn HA helped one of its tenants secure a large backdate of underpaid “housing costs” caused by DWP’s failure to act on the annual rental charge notifications it had received from the Association.

I hope this helps your understanding of the important differences and how they can be applied, but if you’re unsure, please email bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389.

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

Phone 07733 080 389