Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Making a new UC claim
Hi there,
I have a client who I’m helping with a UC appeal. It’s very complicated and it hinges on the Fratila & tanase case. I’d like her appeal to take place after they’ve made a decision on the appeal the DWP have put forward. This has also been going on for a very long time so in the mean time she has now received her passport and has been advised that she can now make a claim for Universal credit. The old universal claim has been completely shut down. she says she can’t get any access to it; is that correct? And she has to make a completely fresh claim now? If the case for her old UC is successful she would receive backdated money in her new Universal Credit claim? Or should it have been kept open while the appeal was ongoing?
Thank you in advance for any help/advice given.
The Supreme Court is due to hear Fratila very soon (18th of May, I believe).
CPAG’s Martin Williams prepared this helpful note: https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resource/Fratila-advice-for-claimants-08-03-21_0.pdf
Your client can of course put in a new claim now and use the new Journal to communicate with DWP. She can ask them to supersede their original decision to refuse UC, if Supreme court finds that pre-settled status is indeed good enough for UC, and if HRT was indeed the reason for closure, and all other eligibility criteria were satisfied. Client should get backdate of UC from the date when she made a claim. She should report any change of circumstances which took place during that time, for example new housing costs or a new baby/partner etc. Making a new claim and having previous claim “resurrected” could mean that the dates of APs are changed a bit, but it is nothing major.
If the decision is negative, i.e. pre-settled insufficient to pass HRT, then examine current HRT position and put in a new claim if client is now eligible.
You are correct- when claim is refused, client can see the old Journal, but they cannot make any new entries. When you make a subsequent claim, client can no longer see the old Journal, so take copies of whole Journal (“expand all” and print to pdf).
The Supreme Court is due to hear Fratila very soon (18th of May, I believe).
CPAG’s Martin Williams prepared this helpful note: https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resource/Fratila-advice-for-claimants-08-03-21_0.pdfYour client can of course put in a new claim now and use the new Journal to communicate with DWP. She can ask them to supersede their original decision to refuse UC, if Supreme court finds that pre-settled status is indeed good enough for UC, and if HRT was indeed the reason for closure, and all other eligibility criteria were satisfied. Client should get backdate of UC from the date when she made a claim. She should report any change of circumstances which took place during that time, for example new housing costs or a new baby/partner etc. Making a new claim and having previous claim “resurrected” could mean that the dates of APs are changed a bit, but it is nothing major.
If the decision is negative, i.e. pre-settled insufficient to pass HRT, then examine current HRT position and put in a new claim if client is now eligible.
You are correct- when claim is refused, client can see the old Journal, but they cannot make any new entries. When you make a subsequent claim, client can no longer see the old Journal, so take copies of whole Journal (“expand all” and print to pdf).
Thank you so much, this is very useful.
The Supreme Court is due to hear Fratila very soon (18th of May, I believe).
CPAG’s Martin Williams prepared this helpful note: https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resource/Fratila-advice-for-claimants-08-03-21_0.pdfYour client can of course put in a new claim now and use the new Journal to communicate with DWP. She can ask them to supersede their original decision to refuse UC, if Supreme court finds that pre-settled status is indeed good enough for UC, and if HRT was indeed the reason for closure, and all other eligibility criteria were satisfied. Client should get backdate of UC from the date when she made a claim. She should report any change of circumstances which took place during that time, for example new housing costs or a new baby/partner etc. Making a new claim and having previous claim “resurrected” could mean that the dates of APs are changed a bit, but it is nothing major.
If the decision is negative, i.e. pre-settled insufficient to pass HRT, then examine current HRT position and put in a new claim if client is now eligible.
You are correct- when claim is refused, client can see the old Journal, but they cannot make any new entries. When you make a subsequent claim, client can no longer see the old Journal, so take copies of whole Journal (“expand all” and print to pdf).
In a strange twist of fate I have just received a letter this morning for her new court date - 01/6/21 - which is after the 18/05/21 so should be fine. Do you think it would be best to wait until the result of the appeal to see if successful? Or wait till the 18th where my whole argument will fall through if the DWP successfully argues against? Or just get her to do a UC claim asap? My thoughts ar eget a claim in ASAP as she is currently living in women’s hostel and desparate to get out.
Put a claim in, help client to create a message in her Journal to explain her current HRT position.
She will need to update her claim as soon as she becomes liable for housing costs.
Then, on or after 18th of May, as soon as we have Supreme Court’s decision, you can put another message about supersession in relation to previous claim.
You may have to be a little bit descriptive and helpful as Case Managers and Decision Makers might be a bit stunned 😊
But don’t neglect contacting the Tribunal Service (to politely point them towards Supreme Court’s decision and how it relates to your client)- in case UC guys are a bit slow on the uptake.
just to add - having attended CPAG’s very good seminar all about this last week I think it is likely the Supreme Court case will be postponed pending the result in the CJEU case which was heard on 4 May and is giving an opinion on the same issue referred by a First-tier Tribunal in Northern Ireland (mentioned in Martin’s article).
Apparently the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU is expected in June with the full decision in July.
Thank you for this update, Daphne.
just to add - having attended CPAG’s very good seminar all about this last week I think it is likely the Supreme Court case will be postponed pending the result in the CJEU case which was heard on 4 May and is giving an opinion on the same issue referred by a First-tier Tribunal in Northern Ireland (mentioned in Martin’s article).
Apparently the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU is expected in June with the full decision in July.
Thank you!
The Supreme Court is now saying that -
This appeal will not now go ahead as a result of information provided to the Court.
I am sorry, but what does it mean?
Edit to answer my own question: https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/legal-test-cases/current-test-cases/eu-pre-settled-status
[ Edited: 18 May 2021 at 10:51 pm by Jo_Smith ]