Good morning
Background

Website members regularly advise me that DWP refuses their requests for retrospective corrections to UC housing costs where they’ve reported changes in their claimant’s circumstances, on the basis:

  • Only the claimant can report changes; and
  • Revisions are limited to a maximum of 12 months.

Both propositions are incorrect in cases involving “official error” where significantly longer (or unlimited) retrospective payments can be made. The case summarised below resulted in a £11,000 retrospective payment, fully extinguishing the tenant’s rent arrears, and safeguarded the tenant by avoiding the need for legal eviction.

Case Study Summary
  • The tenant had been resident in the property from 2017.
  • My landlord client increased rent in line with Local Housing Allowance (LHA) uplifts in 2020 and 2024, serving valid Section 13 notices on his tenant.
  • The tenant refused to report the increases to Universal Credit, believing the higher rent would not be covered.
  • The landlord independently notified DWP by submitting Direct Payment (APA) applications, quoting the correct rent each time and followed this up by telephone.
  • DWP took no action and advised that nothing could be done without the tenant’s consent.
  • As a result, £10,000 in rent arrears accrued despite DWP having the relevant information.
DWP’s Error

A senior DWP officer later asserted that: “The claimant must report any changes in housing costs before we can act upon them.”

This statement was legally wrong.

  • DWP decision‑makers are required to act independently and impartially, applying the law to information they hold, regardless of its source.
  • Both the landlord and tenant were under a legal duty to notify UC of the rent increase, as a material change in circumstances; the landlord did so, but DWP failed to act.
  • The failure to revise the award once notified constituted official error.
Legal Basis for Unlimited Retrospection

The decisive provision relied upon was Regulation 9 of the Universal Credit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, which allows revision of a decision where it:

  • arose from official error; or
  • was made in ignorance of, or based on a mistake as to, a material fact and was more advantageous to the claimant than it should have been.

Crucially:

  • No time limit applies where a revision is made on grounds of official error.
  • The more commonly applied 12‑month limit is applied to other types of revision and does not override Regulation 9.
Outcome

Following escalation to the Area Director level and a formal request that a Decision Maker revise the award of their own initiative:

  • The UC housing costs element was revised retrospectively to reflect the correct rent levels.
  • A £11,000 backdated payment was issued.
  • Rent arrears were cleared in full, preventing the eviction of a vulnerable tenant.
Practical Takeaways for Members
  • DWP does not require tenant consent to revise an award where it already holds relevant information.
  • Landlord notifications (including APA requests and follow‑up calls) can trigger a Decision Maker’s duty to act.
  • Where DWP fails to act on that information, the resulting underpayment is capable of being classified as official error.
  • In such cases, members should challenge any assertion of a 12‑month limit and cite Regulation 9 directly.

If you require any clarification on this topic or have experinced similar events and need some assistance to pursue DWP, please contact me bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

www.ucadvice.co.uk