David, Will and Maria discuss: Viewing previous versions of a UC statement; Tribunals relying on website information when deciding an appeal; Couples splitting up and managed migration claims; Tribunals and use of Google Maps; Capital which is impossible/difficult to realise; Challenging sanction decisions at any time.

Benefits Newscast July 2024 – Transcript

David Stickland: [00:00:04] Hello. Welcome again to our Newscast. It’s July, of course, and I’m happy to be joined by Will Hadwen as usual. And this month also Maria Solomon for our regular round up of the news developments and quite often just things that we think are important and we’d like to share. So perhaps Will I can turn to you first up, and you might like to let us have your first item.

Will Hadwen: [00:00:29] Yes. So my first item is that there’s been a really useful development in the world of online Universal Credit accounts, and that is that is for years now, if we wanted to see the previous version of someone’s UC statement, in other words, what they were actually paid at the end of that assessment period, we’ve not been able to if that’s been overridden by a subsequent decision that they were entitled to more or less. So if someone was overpaid or underpaid, their statement got changed. And you just saw the new statement, you couldn’t see what had happened before. So it was really, really difficult to check overpayments, really, really difficult to check if someone had received the right amount of arrears, if they’ve been underpaid.  So quite recently that has changed. And one of our colleagues at BTC gave us an example of what that looks like, and it’s pretty cool if you’re into things UC. Yeah, it allows you to, to choose either the old or the new statement and then you can see what it used to look like. Then you have to go back to your journal to find out what the decision was that changed it.  But it’s pretty good. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Certainly better.

David Stickland: [00:01:50] So this is this is really important, isn’t it? Because like you say and tracking the history and unpicking things really, really difficult and I know we’ve been saying to people for a long time to sort of keep records and screenshots and all of that kind of stuff, isn’t it?

Will Hadwen: [00:02:08] And that will still be important if your award ended for any reason. So, for example, if you had a previous award and a different relationship status, right, and then you split up with that person or you became a couple with somebody after being single, that would stop your existing award. And so in those cases, it is really useful to have kept track of things or if your award ends due to capital going abroad, you know, there’s all so many reasons why your reward might end. So I think there’s that still quite good advice, but nevertheless this will make advisors lives a lot easier and claimants to.

David Stickland: [00:02:46] And I guess whilst it’s fitting in and we’re getting used to it, maybe probably it’s not a bad thing to be sort of over organized on these things, is it? If you want to take screenshots still, it’s not going to do any harm.

Will Hadwen: [00:02:59] Absolutely not. And I think for claimants, it’s not it’s still not the most user friendly thing in the world. And they might be confused about what it means in the first place. So yeah, there’s definitely still some support and advocacy that people will need around understanding that.

David Stickland: [00:03:18] Oh great. So we should all look out for that. And who knows, we might be as excited about it as you were there, Will. I’m looking forward to seeing my first one. I haven’t seen it yet.

Maria Solomon: [00:03:29] I think it will be useful. I think even, for example, if you’re checking with a client, if they’ve got a child who claimed DLA and now they’re an adult and you just happen to mention to them, you know, did you do you ever remember getting it’s a disabled child premium and they haven’t got our element, I should say. And they haven’t got a clue, have they. So it could be a quick check potentially for things like that as well that, you know, even historically, you know, as long as their claim has been continuous that they have got those elements in payment for that past period and certainly for overpayments. I mean it’s been a nightmare trying to check if things are correct or not. And like, for example, you know, if someone’s got claimed Carer’s Allowance and they’re looking at Carer’s Element and they don’t offset it anymore as well. So you know, you know just things like that.

David Stickland: [00:04:17] Yeah. So much more transparent easier for us to check. It’s been a long time coming as I think another member of our team mentioned. But it is an improvement and something we should be very happy about. So thanks for sharing that Will, maybe I can turn to you, Maria, and find out what your first item is.

Maria Solomon: [00:04:35] Mine’s a PIP case, quite a recent PIP case. And it’s in regard to a tribunal who relied on the RNIB website to actually make their decision, but not only did they rely on that website, firstly, they didn’t tell the claimant that they were relying on this information on the web page. They also relied on specific parts of the information and didn’t take a holistic view or the whole of the evidence. So this went to the Upper Tribunal, and the Upper Tribunal decided that it’s okay that a tribunal looks at that information and evidence, but what’s crucial is that they then actually tell the claimant, forgive the evidence, that the claimant themselves and say, this is what the website says, you know, do you agree with it? Is it relevant to your case ? And allow them comment then, the claimant to comment and whether it is applicable to them or not. So in this case, the claimant didn’t have a clue that the tribunal were doing this and they only found out when they got the full statement of reasons for the tribunal decision, and they’d actually picked out paragraphs of the web page and inserted that into their decision. So it wasn’t even that they were sort of, you know, looking at it and analysing it. They just picked it up. It’s like copy and pasted it into their decision.

David Stickland: [00:06:19] Right. Okay. So this is about procedure and how to go about, how the tribunal should go about, its finding its facts and yeah, it’s getting the information that it needs.

Maria Solomon: [00:06:32] Yeah. It’s only fair that they actually present that information to the client and say we’re going to, you know, potentially we’re going to rely on this. What do you think. Is it, you know, can we have your feedback on this? And if the if the client had seen that or the rep, they would have read through it and said, yeah, I can see you might be relying on this that you pointed out to me, but read along and actually the website said that people in they may still need assistance with this client’s health condition in unfamiliar places. Right. It was actually supporting her case in some parts.

David Stickland: [00:07:06] So clearly, like you say, the important thing is to is to have that conversation with the claimant so that it is about establishing the facts rather than making assumptions. It sounds like assumptions are made, isn’t it? In that case. Okay. Cool. Thanks. Uh, and of course we’ll share the details of that on our website so everyone can see that decision. Have a look at it more closely if they would like.

Will Hadwen: [00:07:32] I think the other thing about that decision is it’s a good reminder that we also often rely on website evidence. If someone’s got a condition and we can prove they’ve got the condition, but they don’t have much other medical evidence, so we might point to the support organization for that condition and say have a look at it. And it’s got information there about how it might affect people. But we’d always want that to be looked at as a whole and in relation to any other evidence the client had.

Maria Solomon: [00:08:02] Yeah. And it’s presented to all parties. If it’s in our submission, then PIP, for example, know what we’re relying on as well. So again it’s that justice isn’t it. Yeah. Yeah.

Will Hadwen: [00:08:11] And allowing the DWP to respond. Yeah.

Maria Solomon: [00:08:13] Yeah. And especially like rare conditions because although they’ve got that doctor on the panel, that doctor might not have come across the condition that our client has had. So they might have to research it themselves.

David Stickland: [00:08:24] Yeah. It’s a good point. None of us are medical experts. Are we or, you know, experts in all types of conditions. So it is something that we’re going to do. And like you say Will, something that we need to sort of be careful to check ourselves as well. And I’m sure you’ll be sort of thinking about this, Maria, when along with a whole bunch of other issues, when you’re delivering our Preparing for an Appeal Tribunal course, which, of course, people might like to. Come on. Great. Thanks. So Will, uh, I think it’s your second, issue or topic. What would you like to bring up next?

Will Hadwen: [00:09:00] Well, as you will all know, my other obsession along with Universal Credit, is a sort of sub obsession of that which is Managed Migration and we’ve all had quite a few cases by now. And one of the things that is, is not uncommon is when people get their Migration Notice, they might be living with a partner, but they might, feel, you know, once they get that migration notice. Oh, do you know what? We’ve had this joint claim for something, but things haven’t been working out, and this is it can bring things to a head because it’s yet another financial pressure often involved in relationship breakdown. So if you do split up between a migration notice being issued and making the claim for Universal Credit, that’s a bit of a problem because it means you’re not entitled to a Transitional Element. So if your legacy entitlement was more than your UC wouldn’t get anything to make up that difference, but you are still entitled to transitional capital disregard, if that applies on migration day. So if you had more than £16,000 in capital, in whatever capacity you were in at that time on migration day. And then the other thing to bear in mind and I think this is unavoidable to a large extent, is that people will have relationship changes after they move on to UC. If they have any of the three forms of transitional protection under Managed Migration. So that’s transitional capital disregard, um, being able to be a student if they were a student on legacy benefits and are on the same course and the transitional element itself, all of those types of protection come to an end if your relationship status changes. So yeah, it’s not an advice point. So much more, an observation that is, it is quite a common factor that interacts with this big change in circumstances of having to move to UC.

David Stickland: [00:11:07] And of course, hopefully we don’t come across these cases. But like you say, real life is such that we do. And yeah, just listening to you there and thinking about the different types of scenarios, the timing of things, the different types of transitional protection, makes us realise how complex this can be. Can I just check with you? Because I’m not sure I got this quite right. Did you say that if there’s separation between the migration notice being issued and the claim being made, the capital disregard can apply. But the other form of transitional protection, the element would.

Will Hadwen: [00:11:43] The element can’t, but the other forms can’t. Yeah.

David Stickland: [00:11:46] Goodness. Yeah. All right. So yeah hopefully so we won’t come across too many of those. But if you do and you’re not sure then contact us and we’ll be happy to help. Maria, next on your list, please.

Maria Solomon: [00:11:59] Okay. Well, one, I read that case about the tribunal having to present the claimant any evidence that they’re relying on. It made me think about what other situations that might happen too. And what I do come across is tribunal members relying on Google Maps to estimate distance from one point to another. And then it just made me think about Google Maps in general, you know, the use of them for PIP appeals because, I mean, I’m going to a tribunal next Friday. And as part of my submission, I have put Google Maps into my submission because it’s in favour of my client. And so sometimes it can be really useful because, you know, I asked my client, how far do you think it is? And you can use like, is it, you know, length of a football pitch or a bus and it’s just like, you know, it’s just meaningless to them. So I end up saying to them, right, where’s your house? And let’s where’s the shop? And that can be really useful in itself going into that detail, because you find that, you know, you bring Google Maps up and it might bring Tesco’s Express or Sainsbury’s whatever. But then the client says, no, I don’t go there. I actually go to the paper shop to get my bread and milk. So and that’s closer to home. So for example a medical assessor or even a tribunal member, if they were to measure the distance because as part of the bundle, the client saying, oh, I go to the local shop, they might just automatically think it’s that well known supermarket, but it’s not. It’s a closer shop. So even identifying that is helpful. And then you start looking at it even more with Google Maps. And the client says, oh no, I don’t go down the road because there’s a ginnel or a back alley here, and it reduces the journey even more. And then I had one case where they said, oh, and you see that there, that’s the swimming pool. There’s a low, there’s a bench there, a low or a low wall. It was. And I sit on it and it’s that kind of detail that gives them credibility to the client’s evidence. And you can even, you know, Google Maps in some ways is really good because not only can you give the route, it tells you how long it’s going to take as well. And you can even like its little blue dots, isn’t it? If you click on the dot, it can give you a street view. So you can see the low wall, for example, that the client sits on. So again, you can even evidence it, you know, as fact for the for the tribunal. And, and also, you know, I’m going on it now so you can tell how much I use it and you can actually change the distance as well with Google Maps, because you can do alternative routes, you can drag it along. So as long as it’s, you know, the car’s been along that route, you can change it. It is a problem, for example, like, we’ve got gunnels, you know, so it’s like a narrow pathway. And of course you won’t get anyone through there. But again, you can draw it on just to show to the tribunal it’s a much shorter route than has been assumed as. Well. And there again, this case law that says that the I mean, I think it’s really old and I couldn’t find any more recent one, but I think this is from 2000. Let me see. Oh, actually it’s 2000. I think it was 2014. This one. And then what it said that, you know, again, tribunal members can rely on Google Maps Or importantly, again, they’ve got to actually tell the client that they’re doing that and tell the client what the distance is, for example, how long it should take and again, how long it could take. If your client is saying it takes five minutes and Google Maps is saying it should take the average person three, again that’s good evidence of a slow walking pace.

David Stickland: [00:15:54] Well thank you. I’m really glad that you’ve mentioned you’ve raised that. And I think we can all see how useful and practical it is in your work and something that we can all use.

Maria Solomon: [00:16:06] There is a caveat though. Can I say that sometimes Google Maps doesn’t actually take it, you know, when you do it from like your house number, sometimes it won’t be the right house. So again, I do the street view to make sure it is. That’s the right house as well.

David Stickland: [00:16:22] Yes, I noted down. I noted down two words here, careful and accurate. I guess it will only be as accurate as we sort of the information we put into it and and being careful to check it certainly sounds like a lot more accurate than the old fashioned approach, which I remember when I started was to look out of the window and point to the petrol station or the shop, and having previously measured that out, how long would it take? Yeah. So that’s great. Thanks Maria. Really helpful. Okay. I think we’ve got a couple of minutes, 2 or 3 minutes left Will, so perhaps fairly briefly, I’ll ask you both to go with your final item, Will you first perhaps.

Will Hadwen: [00:17:07] Yes. I actually changed my final item because I was also going to go for the PIP website evidence case because it’s just it’s a good case. But the other thing that’s been coming up, lots in my case, loads. And it always does and it probably always will, is capital issues to do with capital. And I’ve had quite a few cases recently where what I’ve been trying to argue is that the capital can’t be realized. So in other words, the client can’t get any money out of it because it’s not accessible at the moment. And that could be for a number of different reasons. It depends on what it is. So property abroad. That can vary enormously depending on where it is and the conditions in that country. Does it really have any value? Is it sellable? That sort of thing? The other thing that comes up quite a lot is, investments that have particular conditions, such as fixed terms, and you can’t access it during the fixed term, life insurance of the value of a life insurance, which is specifically disregarded. Funeral payment plans again in some benefits that’s specifically disregarded and others it’s not, but it’s strongly arguable. So I think it’s always worth thinking about. If the client has something like that that you’re worried about, how easy is it for them to get the money? That is the principal. Yeah.

David Stickland: [00:18:39] Yeah, I think I sometimes, sort of say to people, if it seems like it’s unfair, then it may be that there’s a specific provision for it to be disregarded. But I think you’re saying that that this issue of just can’t be realized is a sort of it’s beyond that. There’s the list of sort of standard disregards, and people should always lots of people will know that there’s sort of set disregards the home that you live in, in some cases home that you don’t live in, etc., etc. but this is beyond that, right?

Will Hadwen: [00:19:10] Yeah. So if you’ve checked the disregards and the disregards don’t apply or even before you’ve done that, it might occur to you it’s about whether that capital is actually yours. Can you get it? Can you get it in order to live on? Is it solving the problem of you having to claim benefits?

David Stickland: [00:19:29] Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Great. Thank you. And of course, again people can contact us with cases if they have any. Maria, as they say, not very long left, i’m sorry about that, but I wonder if you can share your final item with us.

Maria Solomon: [00:19:41] Yeah, it’s just a quick one. Hopefully. We’ve come across an issue at work where it’s only one case, but it revealed wider problems where we challenged a sanction decision that happened many years back. And of course, you can challenge those decisions. It was the message that we got back that because the decision was made more than 13 months ago, we couldn’t challenge it. So we thought oh you know it’s just it’s the work culture case manager. You know let’s get it to a decision maker. And first of all because my colleagues place. So when I when we’re looking at it further, we realized that they may have been an issue of gatekeeping. Okay. Where they weren’t passing on the case to the decision maker. So then we sort of escalated the case and got the partnership team involved as well. Right. And they then contacted the decision maker who then actually came back and again said the same thing. It’s beyond 13 months and therefore it cannot be challenged. And they actually then we said, look, just read your own guidance. Here is the paragraph. It says clearly says revision anytime. Yeah. They come back and then they all they did was cut and paste the whole section on mandatory reconsiderations within 13 months. Oh, so you know, although this you think it’s a one off case, I think there may be wider problems. So it has now been agreed by the partnership manager to look at this and maybe bring it up as a training issue. Okay. It is really, really worrying. And you wonder how much it’s permeated in the DWP that people that have had a sanction decision beyond 13 months cannot challenge the decision.

Will Hadwen: [00:21:36] Or official error as well, because I think you you see so often that response coming back, oh, it’s too late. Yeah. They don’t consider official error either. No.

David Stickland: [00:21:47] It’s it’s particularly disappointing to hear that, not least because it’s something that we mentioned quite a lot here and on training, don’t we, that it’s one of those situations where it is at any time. So perhaps different to lots of other decisions. So that is disappointing. But again, I suppose it’s an opportunity for us to reiterate that sanction decisions can be challenged and without a time limit and to, to continue pressing on like you did. It is disappointing to hear that it was so difficult. Okay. Thanks. Both. Our time is up for this month. Thanks, everybody, for tuning in. Of course, our advice service is available if you have been on training with us recently, we’ll share the links. Thank you both for for those we’ll put those on our website. Until next month. Thanks again. Bye for now.