Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Text of the SSWP determination ending live service claims
We asked the DWP to provide the text of the determination of the SSWP which turns off the live service…. amazingly they didn’t see fit to make this a publicly accessible document in the first instance.
They have now provided it:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/determination_signed_by_secretar#outgoing-736477
Martin.
That’s interesting: the way I read it, it means they are no longer accepting rapid reclaim type claims where UC ended, or a claim was rejected, because the claimant’s earnings were too high. Those claimants could, under Commencement Order No 9, reclaim UC without having to satisfy the gateway conditions ... but it appears the determination has been drafted to refer to postcodes where the gateway conditions apply rather than cases in which the gateway conditions apply. That means no more rapid reclaims from people in those postcodes doesn’t it?
That’s interesting: the way I read it, it means they are no longer accepting rapid reclaim type claims where UC ended, or a claim was rejected, because the claimant’s earnings were too high. Those claimants could, under Commencement Order No 9, reclaim UC without having to satisfy the gateway conditions ... but it appears the determination has been drafted to refer to postcodes where the gateway conditions apply rather than cases in which the gateway conditions apply. That means no more rapid reclaims from people in those postcodes doesn’t it?
SoS says
“1..claims for universal credit.. may not be made in any postcode
district or part district in which ... the gateway conditions apply..”
But if it’s live service “rapid-reclaim” (earnings too high but falling within six months) then I think that no (new) claim is required (saved reg 6 of UC,etc (C&P) regs.)
So my reading is that the SoS’s determination still allows people in that position to restart live service UC if their earnings fall within the time limit.
[ Edited: 12 Feb 2018 at 05:55 pm by Jon Blackwell ]
Yes, you’re right - so no need to exempt them specifically in the text of the determination. Very efficient drafting actually!