Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Two universal credit UT judgments…
the first one all about right to reside rather than UC but the second considers whether the computer system was inoperative on grounds that gateway questions were not clear - claimant had answered yes to will you receive wages of more that £330 as he was still owed money by employer but didn’t know how much. Was sent to JSA but when he tried to claim JSA they told him to go back to UC and answer no to the question. However, it was two days later by then. Backdating refused - computer system was not inoperative (although possibly defective) -
Moreover, while the lack of guidance given by the official computer system on 18 July 2015 might be regarded as a defect, I do not consider it to be arguable that it rendered the system “inoperative”. Although it is understandable that the claimant answered “yes” rather than “no” in the absence of guidance, a very strictly literal approach to the claim form would have led him to answer “no” and so the lack of guidance did not actually prevent the claimant from making a claim. Insofar as there may have been a more fundamental defect in the wording of the question on the claim form, its effect is to facilitate claims for universal credit rather than prevent them. It may have prevented the claimant from claiming old style jobseeker’s allowance, but that is not a ground for backdating a claim for universal credit. In regulation 26(2)(b), the words “the claim” clearly refer to the claim for universal credit. (paragraph 38)
Ah shame - I’ve suggested exactly that argument in some other cases where the online system didn’t work for people (one thought she’d completed it when she hadn’t…).
So the deal for these claimants then is…complain?
I think what the judge had to say about the questions, and how to answer them particularly where, as he pointed out, claimants are told be careful and accurate was very interesting. he was very clear that the questions should in fact be redrafted. The fact that parliamentary draftsmen and question setters can understand the strict logic involved doesn’t meant that they should assume that everyone can (since, as we know, most people can’t!)
[ Edited: 6 Apr 2017 at 09:55 am by ClairemHodgson ]24. However, it seems to me that the claim form is badly designed, because the
Secretary of State’s submission works both ways. As a matter of ordinarily usage –
and particularly when being careful as claimants are always advised to be when
making declarations in relation to social security benefits – a person does not say “I
am expecting not to receive take-home pay of £330 or more in the next month” or “I
am expecting to receive take-home pay of less than £330 in the next month” unless
he or she is reasonably confident that no payment will be received or that any sum
received will be less than £330. A person may be completely unsure whether he or
she will receive any payment or, more likely, as to the whether the amount will be
more or less than £330, in which case he or she will not be sufficiently confident to
have an expectation one way or the other and will simply say “I do not know whether
I will receive take-home pay of £330 or more in the next month”. Thus, while some
claimants will be reasonably confident that they will receive take-home pay of £330
or more in the next month and others who will be reasonably confident that they
won’t, there will be a third group who will simply be uncertain.
25. The Secretary of State argues that, because those who are uncertain are not
confident that they will receive take-home pay of £330 or more in the next month, the
correct answer for them to give on the claim form is “no”. I accept that, as a matter
of very strict logic, that is so and that therefore the advice given to the claimant on
20 July 2015 was, strictly speaking, correct insofar as it explained which answer on
the claim form was appropriate. However, it seems to me to be unlikely that this
claimant is the only one to have read the option “no” as requiring him to declare that
he expected not to receive take-home pay of £330 or more in the next month even
though he had no such clear expectation. People do not always distinguish between
“I am not expecting take-home pay of £330 or more in the next month” and “I am
expecting not to receive take-home pay of £330 or more in the next month”. Without
some guidance, the claim form is apt to confuse and a cautious person may prefer to
answer “yes” rather than “no” so as to avoid an apparent under-declaration that
might be construed as deliberately misleading.
26. What is perhaps more serious is that the implication of the Secretary of
State’s submissions and my acceptance of them is that the question on the claim
form does not appear to achieve the intended goal of giving claimants an opportunity
to make the declaration required as a gateway condition.