Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Short term benefit advance not payable after 21 days from a new claim?
Has anyone heard of any legislation or guidance which imposes a time limit of 21 days, from the date of claim of UC, when asking for a short term benefit advance?
We are told, by the UC office, that such a limit is UC ‘policy’ but have been unable to find any legislation (such as the Social Security (Payments on Account of Benefit) Regulations 2013 No. 383) or reference in the decision maker’s guide to it. Any thoughts? If the office is following some undisclosed internal policy which is neither from legislation or official guidance is there scope for a judicial review perhaps?
If there is no legislative basis for it then it’s a policy. The DWP can have a policy they just can’t have a blanket policy. A blanket policy is amenable to JR.
Hi
The “21 day rule” is news to me. There’s nothing in the Social Security (Payments on Account of Benefit) regulations 2013/383 to justify such decisions as you say and I’ve seen nothing in the DM guides.
Initially, while you are dealing with an individual case, you might challenge the office concerned to direct you to the source of this (so called) policy, although ultimately you could bring a JR.
While we’re on STBA, (at least for non UC benefits)...you’ll find lots of useful info at http://www.cpag.org.uk/stba
Best wishes
Not a reply but a follow up question - what is the mechanism for asking for an advance payment? Claimants are asking whether they can claim on the online claim form, which as far as I can tell you can’t - it has to be separately claimed via JC+. if that is right, does it matter whether that is done in person or by phone, and if the latter, does it matter which phone number is used (e.g. should it be the UC number for online claims? or the JC+ contact centre number?) Seems more and more likely than obvious need will occur before the determination of the claim and some claimants know immediately they will need a short-term advance.
The UC STA system borrows from the STBA system, and more guidance is promised by the DWP. As we know, there is no STBA claim form - I recall that the STBA guidance says that the possibility of a STBA is supposed to spontaneously occur to the DWP if there are signs of financial distress within the background benefit claim (don’t laugh), activating the STBA consideration by use of some kind of DWP ‘template’. There are no rules forbidding an application from the claimant. One assumes that same sort of deal will apply to STAs within UC.
Of course, the 5 or 6 week UC lead in will make STAs potentially more important than STBAs, as has been suggested. What is very disappointing within the current STBA guidance is the requirement/assumption that a STBA will only be considered if the claimant has already been referred to the Town Hall for local welfare. Depending on how the JR goes on local welfare funding for 2015/2016, that requirement may become a somewhat empty gesture.
We are repeatedly told that UC is like a wage, and maybe STAs are to likened to a ‘sub’ from the the new employer. That being so, many employers would not give a sub of maybe more than a week or two. In that context, a 21 day limit could be seen as generous. I doubt whether a JR will be an attractive or practical remedy against any such policy. Are the main supermarkets following all of this? Are they anticipating more shoplifting? What are penniless claimants to do?
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/7113/
There’s a potential JR in this.
That’s great. My worry is only that in the short term,
with a penniless person needing support now, a JR would
not be an answer.
Of course it might generate a long term fix for
claimants in general, in the longer term.
If determination of the new claim is likely to drag on interim relief might inspire DWP to make that STBA… Might be worth a call to your local firm with a public law contract and a letter before action to DWP.