Dear colleague,

I wanted to share some recent updates on the UC migration cases highlighted in my earlier bulletin. The case began as a housing costs dispute, but it has now produced an important outcome on both the claimant’s legacy ESA award and their Universal Credit transitional protection.

What has now happened

DWP has agreed to revise one of the resident’s income-related ESA awards to include the missing Severe Disability Premium (SDP), backdated to 2017. Crucially, DWP has accepted this should be treated as an “official error”, which was the basis put forward in the earlier bulletin and attracted a £33K backdate.

That decision then forced a further review of the resident’s Universal Credit award. As the claimant should have been treated as having SDP immediately before moving to UC, DWP has also revised the UC award to include a transitional element of £305 per calendar month. That award has been backdated, but only to the start of the UC claim, around one year ago, but with £3000+ backdate.

Housing costs still outstanding

The less satisfactory part of the case is that DWP is still procrastinating over the claimant’s entitlement to the two-bedroom rate for housing costs. It is insisting on a letter from the claimant’s GP or consultant confirming the need for overnight care, despite the claimant’s Down syndrome diagnosis, receipt of the highest rate of PIP Daily Living, and previous entitlement to the two-bedroom rate under Housing Benefit, before migration to UC.

Rather than prolong the dispute, I have asked the Appointee to obtain the requested medical letter and have asked DWP to hold fire on the Mandatory Reconsideration until that evidence can be supplied. Assuming the letter confirms what the family and support arrangements already make clear, the housing costs issue should be resolved shortly with further backdating to the UC date of award.

Why this matters

This case again highlights how parents and appointees supporting disabled adults can all too easily see significant benefit loss when a legacy benefit award is not properly checked at the point of migration. In this case, the original referral was only about housing costs. The missing SDP, the resulting UC transitional element, and the scale of the historic underpayment only came to light because the housing costs problem prompted a wider benefit audit.

At the point of migration, these issues appear to have been overlooked. In the past, DWP employed “Specialist Case Officers” who could assist families in this position and help identify these problems before awards were transferred or closed. Increasingly, however, the system relies on welfare rights and financial inclusion staff to spot and challenge errors after the event.

That is fine where a landlord, local authority, housing association or voluntary sector agency has experienced advisers on tap. Regrettably, not all areas of the UK have that level of specialist support available, and families may not know there is anything to challenge until substantial arrears or shortfalls have already built up.

Practical points for members

Where a disabled adult has moved from income-related ESA and Housing Benefit to UC, it is worth checking more than the immediate presenting issue. The legacy ESA award should be checked for missing disability premiums, especially SDP, and any omission should be considered for revision on official error grounds where the facts support that approach.

The UC award should also be checked to ensure any transitional protection has been correctly identified, calculated and backdated to the start of the UC award where appropriate. In this case, the addition of the missing SDP to ESA directly affected the UC award and produced an additional transitional element of £305 per calendar month, plus a lump sum payment of £3000.

Finally, housing costs should not be treated in isolation. Where the claimant previously received the two-bedroom rate because they required overnight care, that position should be reviewed carefully on migration to UC. If DWP asks for further evidence, it may be quicker and more effective to obtain the evidence while preserving the claimant’s Mandatory Reconsideration position, rather than allowing the dispute to drift to appeal, where, because of backlogs, appeals can take 6-12 months to secure a hearing.

If you require further information on this or any other related topic, please drop me an email bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389.

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd