Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Correction of UC journal records
Ive highlighted this one via the stakeholder forum too - tho in fact I’ve given them the link to the thread so they can watch all comments that come in…
Thank you Daphne. Should I complain, lodge a MR? I don’t have a written decision yet for the phantom overpayment.
I recently did a SAR for a client for whom we now act as corporate appointee. It has taken months to work back through the account and he is now finally getting the correct amount. The payment statements have of course been overwritten.
The issue that remains is that he saw very little of the arrears due because there are a large number of deductions from his UC and they have just taken money off the arrears for some of these. But no information has been provided about the amount of the deductions, no breakdown of how they decided how much to withhold and even worse, there is nothing on the account looking back other than bland notifications “we are taking money off your UC for…”.
Our request for detailed explanations of the deductions including the legal basis for making them have been totally ignored. Hence the SAR.
Apparently an “enormous” envelope has been received by the Deputies and I now have to get permission to to into the office to go through whatever has been sent. And that is despite trying to narrow the request down as far as possible.
Apparently an “enormous” envelope has been received by the Deputies and I now have to get permission to to into the office to go through whatever has been sent. And that is despite trying to narrow the request down as far as possible.
In all of the cases in which we have requested SARs (limiting the request to relevant specific periods etc) the bundle has been over 50cm thick! UC really is ‘process driven’. As I posted above:-
I also think part of the problem is that the UC IT system is so complex and produces so many ‘screens’ for a straight forward transaction on the account that staff do not understand how it works or where to find relevant information. I say this on the basis of the sheer volume of paperwork that a SAR provides (compared to the volume of paperwork a SAR would produce for a legacy benefit for a similar transaction).
Computer says “No - I’m not going to tell you what I’m doing, why or how”.
Following on Jojo’s and Peter’s posts.
Does anyone know if the system/build have the ability to offset overpayments against underpayments and vice versa i.e. can it be done through automation or does it have to be manually over ridden re: a claimant’s UC account?
If manually does that affect the system i.e. create glitches/gremlins, mean rebuilding online case and so on and so forth or have to involve interventions by software people before CM’s or DM’s can action stuff re: a claimant’s UC account?
As there is an ongoing review of the thousands of Trust and Protect claims I should imagine there is a To Do and corresponding ALP on the Build for overpayments and hopefully for underpayments. Anything more complicated would be a manual issue for the Case Manager who could make a direct bank payment via the CPS system.
As there is an ongoing review of the thousands of Trust and Protect claims I should imagine there is a To Do and corresponding ALP on the Build for overpayments and hopefully for underpayments. Anything more complicated would be a manual issue for the Case Manager who could make a direct bank payment via the CPS system.
You would think so wouldn’t you. It’s just I have never seen an example of of offsetting without intervention from an advice agency.
Apparently an “enormous” envelope has been received by the Deputies and I now have to get permission to to into the office to go through whatever has been sent. And that is despite trying to narrow the request down as far as possible.
In all of the cases in which we have requested SARs (limiting the request to relevant specific periods etc) the bundle has been over 50cm thick! UC really is ‘process driven’. As I posted above:-
I also think part of the problem is that the UC IT system is so complex and produces so many ‘screens’ for a straight forward transaction on the account that staff do not understand how it works or where to find relevant information. I say this on the basis of the sheer volume of paperwork that a SAR provides (compared to the volume of paperwork a SAR would produce for a legacy benefit for a similar transaction).
Computer says “No - I’m not going to tell you what I’m doing, why or how”.
This quite clearly runs counter to GDPR. Hiding answers in a large bundle where you have asked specific questions.
If you are looking for relevant £ sums, grounds for decisions etc. this is information DWP should not have any difficulty extracting and it would be reasonable for them to do so.
I’d ask DWP to provide the information in an accessible format. If they don’t, complain to the ICO.
Recently had a case of housing element overpayment where the history of the op can no longer be seen on the UC account because of the way UC overwrite past statements - it now looks as if the client didn’t receive the element for the period of the op.
Luckily, separate records of what the client received exist. But I’m wondering if even where it doesn’t cause a detriment, there’s still a GDPR breach?
As far as I can see from the ICO website, personal data that records a mistake or error should show both the mistake that was made & its correction. I’m hoping this client might complain to the ICO, as they’ve nothing to lose.
Am I oversimplifying this…?
I don’t think that GDPR mandates that any particular information should be directly available as part of the journal - there would (potentially) be a breach if the information had been destroyed so that it could never be accessed but that is a different concept.
The “payments” part of the journal is a misnomer - what it is is a record of the current operative decisions in relation to each of the APs on the claim which may or may not correspond to what was actually paid. Where the decisions are revised, previous decisions in relation to that AP are no longer accessible. You can identify that the decision has been changed because the information about when MR rights expire is also updated.
Updating the ‘payments’ record in this way shouldn’t mean that the original records are unavailable for audit, or for inclusion in an SAR or appeal response - as opposed to just being unavailable to the end user - which I would imagine would suffice for data protection purposes.
Thanks Elliott. That’s useful. So perhaps then we are back to what is accessible -ie if a SAR were made, and it wasn’t possible to interpret the info or extract it.
Having read this thread last week, re overwriting of amounts paid on the UC journal when the DWP revise a decision, I asked a client to send me copies of the payment pages for three APs in 2020.
A decision in May 21 put the housing costs element back on the award. (Had initially dropped off when it was reported the partner had moved out - so change from couple to single claim).
The decision letter shows only a total underpayment for the APs in question (so no explanation of how the HC element had been calculated) however, unlike other advisers’ reports above, the payment screens have NOT been amended, and still (some 2 months later) show no HC element.
In my ongoing quest to understand the administration of this benefit, I don’t know if this represents an improvement (just the 3 years since you first raised it Daphne); an oversight; or a feature (the decision was not issued as an MR outcome, despite the challenge being phrased as such).
Daphne
I have just picked up another case (see https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15024/) where the issue is re-instatement of an original claim dated 29/4/20 (following a revised decision dated 30/7/21) and payment of arrears due up to date of 2nd claim (which is in payment). The original claim was ‘closed’ as UC incorrectly took income from letting a room in clients house into account as income.
The clients assessment period has now been ‘re-set’ to start on the 29th and payment statements and other records (including ‘report your income and expenditure’ - client is s/e) have been ‘overwritten’ as a result. UC appear to be treating the issue as ‘backdating’ under UC etc (C&P) Reg. 26 (which it is not) - notice on journal following revised decision “your claim has been backdated to 27/2/21” - a date which has no relevance to either claim!
Because of the ‘overwriting’ it is again extremely difficult to check the arrears payment due.
It appears UC have still not overcome the problem of calculating payment for a part assessment period in this situation when arrears are due for X full assessment period + Y days. In this case 10 full APs + 27 days!
UC have failed to respond to clients increasingly exasperated requests for an explanation via his journal.
Thanks Elliott. That’s useful. So perhaps then we are back to what is accessible -ie if a SAR were made, and it wasn’t possible to interpret the info or extract it.
I agree with Elliott - the issue is what is accessible to the claimant rather than what is accessible to DWP staff (for whom the issue may be whether they actually understand it). My experience of using SARs suggest there is a very large amount of (often useful) info. / screens that are never accessible to claimants.
I would suggest, to address Va1der’s post above, that unless a claimant / adviser is very clear about what specific information is required (given that one can’t see what is never accessible) the only option is to request all of the UC records for the relevant period when making an SAR.
So as not to scare others from making SAR applications I should revise 50cm in my post above to 50mm (I’ve always been imperial!) - but its still an awful lot of info to wade through and collate to find the info. required.
Obviously obtaining and understanding all of this information places enormous barriers in the way of claimants / advisers in being able to address issues with UC. But that’s ‘simplification’ for you!
Daphne
I have just picked up another case (see https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15024/) where the issue is re-instatement of an original claim dated 29/4/20 (following a revised decision dated 30/7/21) and payment of arrears due up to date of 2nd claim (which is in payment). The original claim was ‘closed’ as UC incorrectly took income from letting a room in clients house into account as income.
The clients assessment period has now been ‘re-set’ to start on the 29th and payment statements and other records (including ‘report your income and expenditure’ - client is s/e) have been ‘overwritten’ as a result. UC appear to be treating the issue as ‘backdating’ under UC etc (C&P) Reg. 26 (which it is not) - notice on journal following revised decision “your claim has been backdated to 27/2/21” - a date which has no relevance to either claim!
Because of the ‘overwriting’ it is again extremely difficult to check the arrears payment due.
It appears UC have still not overcome the problem of calculating payment for a part assessment period in this situation when arrears are due for X full assessment period + Y days. In this case 10 full APs + 27 days!
UC have failed to respond to clients increasingly exasperated requests for an explanation via his journal.
Hi Peter - do you want to DM/email me the Nino and I’ll send it up via stakeholders
I received the one I requested, it was certainly hefty. But it did include useful information about the deductions, arrears due to underpayments and the “offers to Debt Management” that I doubt I would have found elsewhere. And interestingly almost nothing had been redacted.
Definitely worth doing.
UC payment amounts are these days included on CIS and these records are not overwritten in the same way as the Build. Here is a link as to how to obtain a claimant’s CIS record.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729893/customer-information-system-the-data-held-about-you.pdf
Daphne
I have just picked up another case (see https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15024/) where the issue is re-instatement of an original claim dated 29/4/20 (following a revised decision dated 30/7/21) and payment of arrears due up to date of 2nd claim (which is in payment). The original claim was ‘closed’ as UC incorrectly took income from letting a room in clients house into account as income.
The clients assessment period has now been ‘re-set’ to start on the 29th and payment statements and other records (including ‘report your income and expenditure’ - client is s/e) have been ‘overwritten’ as a result. UC appear to be treating the issue as ‘backdating’ under UC etc (C&P) Reg. 26 (which it is not) - notice on journal following revised decision “your claim has been backdated to 27/2/21” - a date which has no relevance to either claim!
Because of the ‘overwriting’ it is again extremely difficult to check the arrears payment due.
It appears UC have still not overcome the problem of calculating payment for a part assessment period in this situation when arrears are due for X full assessment period + Y days. In this case 10 full APs + 27 days!
UC have failed to respond to clients increasingly exasperated requests for an explanation via his journal.
Hi Peter - do you want to DM/email me the Nino and I’ll send it up via stakeholders
An update for those interested (inc DWP readers). Client has now received a notice via his Journal (a copy of a UC internal ‘Incident Form v3’) referring his case to the SIL team (which I understand is their IT specialist team) - which we had requested via escalation routes. This (eventually) occurred in previous similar cases. Tacit acknowledgement that the UC system cannot calculate arrears in such cases?