× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Oops! - not so many UC claimants after all…

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3584

Joined: 14 March 2014

Turns out the government accidentally counted non-claimants (children and non-dependents) when counting the number of UC claims so there aren’t actually as many as they thought. Next lot of statistics on 19 October will show the correct figures which are expected to be lower…

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-revision-to-the-number-of-claims-between-8-apr-and-1-sept-2016-statistical-notice

Benny Fitzpatrick
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer, Southway Housing Trust, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 630

Joined: 2 June 2015

“accidentally”?

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1976

Joined: 12 October 2012

Next: family pets, people who used to live at the address, callers at the door, passers-by, holiday-makers in UC areas….anything to boost the numbers!

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2955

Joined: 12 March 2013

This revision has no impact on the number of people who go on to start receiving UC or the number of people currently in receipt of UC

So ... that was already accurate, or that will be allowed to remain inaccurate?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3221

Joined: 14 July 2014

Andrew Dutton - 07 October 2016 12:43 PM

Next: family pets, people who used to live at the address, callers at the door, passers-by, holiday-makers in UC areas….anything to boost the numbers!

I think they call that pulling a concentrix

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Nah, that would have to include dead people

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Billy Durrant - 07 October 2016 01:03 PM

Nah, that would have to include dead people

and shops/post offices…

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3290

Joined: 7 January 2016

This might help to explain the vast gap between number of claims submitted and number of claimants?

Universal chaos.

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3584

Joined: 14 March 2014

You’re right Paul - that’s something we asked them about a number of times at operational stakeholders and they never had a satisfactory answer - well now we know - they were fudging it!

NAI
forum member

Unclaimed Benefits Campaign, Middlesbrough CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 132

Joined: 12 January 2015

ClairemHodgson - 07 October 2016 01:21 PM
Billy Durrant - 07 October 2016 01:03 PM

Nah, that would have to include dead people

and shops/post offices…

I thought that HMRC/Concentrix already did that in regard to LTAHAW decisions!

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

Yep the gap between number of claims and number of claimants was glaring, and unexplained!

hbinfopeter
forum member

Director - HBINFO, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 101

Joined: 29 July 2010

“they were fudging it!”

Very polite.

I can think of some other phrases more appropriate…...