Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
You may be the appointee but we still want to see the claimant – and we have no time to read Journal entries
Claimant was on IRESA, Support Group (severe disability from birth, has never needed ftf assessment) – lost entitlement 4 years ago as he inherited over £16000.
Savings dropped below capital limit this year: appointee (who also has Power of Attorney) was told by DWP to complete an ESA3, also put in IS10 for SDP.
Both were refused as there was no remaining ESA claim, it was credits only – told by DWP after considerable delay to claim UC.
Appointee attends verification interview at Jobcentre with all necessary evidence – staff took details but then said the computer system would allow them to go no further and a new appointment was needed, claimant has to be there.
Appointee also told that UC would also need to visit her before they will accept the appointeeship.
Appointee sends multiple messages to UC via the Journal to ask what is happening – is finally telephoned and told that staff don’t always have time to read Journal entries and she should always phone.
To add to the fun, everyone including DWP advised that claimant would get LCWRA right away, but now they have concluded that credits-only ESA doesn’t count for Reg 19 Transitional Regs (which I think is correct, sadly) – so in to the WCA sausage-machine he goes. I’m looking for him to be treated as having LCWRA under Sch 9.
Gad, gad and thrice gad!!!! Complaints, backdating request, general arrrrrg.
Reg 21 does the same job as Reg 19 for credits only cases.
Thanks Charles I will look again.
Other than echoing Charles’ comments, UC have a discrete process to approve an appointee; the status doesn’t really travel from ESA to UC. It should but in practice, even we, as Corporate Acting Body have had to be reappointed when we’ve made UC claims for people.
[ Edited: 11 Nov 2019 at 04:51 pm by Dan_Manville ]Other than echoing Charles’ comments, UC have a discrete process to approve an appointee; the status doesn’t really travel from ESA to UC. It should but in practice, even we, as CAB have had to be reappointed when we’ve made UC claims for people.
Can you point me to the details of this process? I can’t find anything.
Other than echoing Charles’ comments, UC have a discrete process to approve an appointee; the status doesn’t really travel from ESA to UC. It should but in practice, even we, as CAB have had to be reappointed when we’ve made UC claims for people.
Can you point me to the details of this process? I can’t find anything.
No; it’s just that when we first claimed UC for some of our people under appointeeship they had to approve us, despite the fact we’d been appointee for years under legacy.
It was pretty straightforward tbh.
Fair enough but this case isn’t, it’s a mess and the appointee is getting very stressed. I’ve asked DWP to clarify their policy and will share any rich nuggets they provide.
I am also struggling to find anything about how it works when a person already has a claim up and running but becomes unwell and then requires an appointee. I am going to be phoning the helpline with someone later this week to look into his mother becoming his appointee. The UC claim has been running along for a few years with various issues. I might be wrong, and i know there would be no legal basis for this, but i expect we might be told that a new claim is required in order to allow an appointee to be added?
I expect we might be told that a new claim is required in order to allow an appointee to be added?
yep. They can’t see the full email address or the security questions so unless your client can remember them you’ll need to submit a new claim.
It’s worth calling UC to test whether your client does remember them though as they’re usually answers that people instinctively know.
I expect we might be told that a new claim is required in order to allow an appointee to be added?
yep. They can’t see the full email address or the security questions so unless your client can remember them you’ll need to submit a new claim.
One of my clients had a severe stroke just after applying for UC earlier this year - unable to communicate. I don’t think we’d have got anywhere calling UC on the phone, but JCP were really helpful and managed to get the client’s mum set up as appointee.
Other than echoing Charles’ comments, UC have a discrete process to approve an appointee; the status doesn’t really travel from ESA to UC. It should but in practice, even we, as Corporate Acting Body have had to be reappointed when we’ve made UC claims for people.
In Derbyshire we have not had to do that and have been accepted as appointee
Other than echoing Charles’ comments, UC have a discrete process to approve an appointee; the status doesn’t really travel from ESA to UC. It should but in practice, even we, as Corporate Acting Body have had to be reappointed when we’ve made UC claims for people.
In Derbyshire we have not had to do that and have been accepted as appointee
I’ve got a case where cl has an appointee for PIP and it is not carrying over to UC. Our local JCP have said that they need to re-verify every new appointee for UC to ensure they are computer literate…..even the ones who have a telephone claim. Seems ridiculous to me, as JCPs set up online UC claims for everyone, even people who are illiterate or cant use a computer, but to be an appointee you need to be a whiz?
More importantly, I can’t find anything in the legislation or guidance that overules Regulation 16 of UC (TP) Regs 2014, so I’m not sure on what legal basis they are allowed to do this?
A follow up question…if someone already has a personal appointee, and it’s an online claim, does this show up anywhere on their account, ie in the journal or elsewhere?
I have just asked the appointee in the case that started this thread if they can answer this point. A colleague thinks there should be something, this was certainly the intention, I am told.
I have just asked the appointee in the case that started this thread if they can answer this point. A colleague thinks there should be something, this was certainly the intention, I am told.
Cheers Andrew - would be useful to know more. In fact, I am asking for a colleague, but I’d love to know anyway!
My person says:
I have checked all through the UC claim/Journal it is only us that have mentioned several times that I am appointee, nothing from DWP about it