Backdating UC when appointee fails to make claim in time

Hi folks, I’m sure I saw something on here about whether it was unfair for a claimant to be penalised when an appointee fails to make a claim to benefit in good time. If I’m not misremembering could some helpful soul direct me to the relevant thread or article. Thanks.

I am not aware of the relevant thread but in my experience with appointees over the years, if the appointee makes a mistake then the DWP’s attitude is ” tough luck ” .

I can’t identify a thread either but it certainly isn’t fair on the claimant. However, the “tough luck” attitude on the part of DWP does seem sound in law, provided that the appointee had authority to make a claim for the particular benefit concerned. See paragraph 10(3) of https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/cmmr_upload/csb/csb1681993.doc.

But I wonder if anyone has ever tried to get compensation from the DWP for appointing someone who, it turns out, wasn’t up to the job of appointee. There is, after all, a supposedly rigorous vetting process for appointees - https://www.gov.uk/become-appointee-for-someone-claiming-benefits - and the SoS supposedly monitors the appointment with the right to revoke it at any time.

Thanks both. Tough luck is the stance DWP are taking but the case is proceeding to appeal and I wonder whether there is an argument to be made that technically there was no appointee for UC purposes as it was a first claim for a young person who was no longer a QYP for benefit purposes. There was an appointee for PIP and that’s who they are claiming should have made the claim but it is my understanding that UC process for appointing someone doesn’t necessarily follow from previous decisions. I might be barking up the wrong tree completely but thought it was worth an ask here.

Whatever arguments there are regarding defaults by an appointee, they are not really going to do much good because the circumstances in which UC can be backdated are limited to those set out in reg 26 C&P Regs. You can perhaps get a months backdating on the basis of ‘disability’ but there’s simply no provision to go any further.