Miscalculation of TP Erosion?

Sorry, DWP are saying an increase to the rate of PIP erodes transitional protection paid within a Universal Credit award? PIP isn’t even taken into account as an income…..

They are finding new ways to make things up and this is very worrying because a lot of people will just accept this kind of nonsense.

CHAC Adviser - 02 July 2024 02:56 PM

Just wondering if anyone else has seen this. We’ve had a client in who had a transitional amount of SDP in their UC award. They are claiming UC, NS-ESA, and PIP (still SDL). Their transitional protection was removed in their most recent assessment period (first after benefit uprating took effect). We’ve queried this on the journal and been told that it’s because their increases in the amount of UC, ESA and PIP that they are getting are more than the transitional protection was therefore it ends as she’s no longer worse off under UC.

This appears to be balderdash because as far as I can see the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 say that it’s decreased (from the second assessment period which she’s way past) by any “relevant increases” (Reg 55(2)(b)) which is defined as being an increase in the maximum amounts of those things defined under section 9 to 12 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (basically standard allowance, housing costs, child elements, LCW/LCWRA elements). No mention of PIP and ESA.

I reckon that her transitional protection should have gone down to around £65pm rather than having been reduced to nil.

Am I right and if so has anyone else seen this? I’m now worried that this decision maker will have made the same mistake for a lot of other people!

As Paul and you both say, it’s only the increase in the UC elements that can erode the transitional element. If you are able to email me the client’s details (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address))  I will raise it via the stakeholder forum - very worrying as you say

Edit - would be great to see exactly what the journal message said too :)

Have you actually compared the new statement with the previous one to see what has changed?

AFAIK, the erosion is carried out by the computer automatically, so whatever explanation they’ve given on the journal, I’d be surprised if it was really due to PIP or ESA…

Charles - 02 July 2024 04:23 PM

Have you actually compared the new statement with the previous one to see what has changed?

Hi Charles, yes had a look at the UC statements. The last one which had the transitional element was higher than the most recent without the transitional element:

April/May Assessment Period

SA - £368.76
HCE - £376.00
LCWRA - £390.06
TP - £131.11
Max UC = £1,265.93

May/June Assessment Period

SA - £393.45
HCE - £390.00
LCWRA - £416.19
TP - £0
Max UC = £1,199.64

The only other things showing in the statements were deductions for things like the NS-ESA.

I make the increase in the relevant elements to be £64.82 meaning that the new transitional protection figure should be £66.29 not £0 as is showing in the statement.

But I am open to correction!

Daphne - 02 July 2024 03:45 PM

As Paul and you both say, it’s only the increase in the UC elements that can erode the transitional element. If you are able to email me the client’s details (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address))  I will raise it via the stakeholder forum - very worrying as you say

I’ll check with the client first but can’t see it being an issue!

Daphne - 02 July 2024 03:45 PM

Edit - would be great to see exactly what the journal message said too :)

Sure, I’ve attached the first set of journal entries starting from their response to our MR request (in the forlorn hope it might get some sense out of them) and our response. Their response follows in the next post. Apologies for the poor quality, it was a bit of battle to get them in a state that RightsNet would accept (any chance of increasing the maximum image size from 800x600 and maybe allowing more than three attachments per post?)

We’re going to be doing an SSCS1 later on today.

Image Attachments

Click thumbnail to see full-size image

Today’s response on the journal to our message is attached.

Image Attachments

Click thumbnail to see full-size image

I appreciate how there is a claim made in the opening paragraph followed by a long quote from guidance which fails to make good on the claim and actually backs up your position entirely, as though your correspondent hasn’t actually read it and is just blagging their way through the interaction.

Arguing with case managers is possibly the most infuriating part of this job.

Elliot Kent - 03 July 2024 12:36 PM

I appreciate how there is a claim made in the opening paragraph followed by a long quote from guidance which fails to make good on the claim and actually backs up your position entirely, as though your correspondent hasn’t actually read it and is just blagging their way through the interaction.

Arguing with case managers is possibly the most infuriating part of this job.

Yes, feels as if they’ve just searched their own internal guidance (and I don’t think its from ADM as I couldn’t find it there) for “erosion” and posted whatever they found doesn’t it?

To be honest we’ve not even bothered replying to the most recent message (though the temptation to reply: “Thanks for that, but we did ask for the legislative reference for counting ESA and PIP not an unsourced piece of DWP guidance which doesn’t actually address that point in any case”  was extremely strong) and simply completed an SSCS1. They’ve had two bites at the cherry since we clearly requested an MR. No point continuing this ridiculous dialogue.

Might be worth kicking it to the partnership manager to try and get a quicker resolution.

We still have the mystery of the actual reason for the computer to have taken your client’s TP away, as opposed to what the CM thinks that reason is.

You refer to PIP standard DL component, in which case the difference between ESA and PIP combined from 23/24 to 24/25 is £57.42 a month.  That would not be enough to erode the TP to nil in this case, so I don’t think that is what has happened.

I think there is some other reason, which might or might not be an error, that has made the UC computer system think the claimant no longer qualifies for a transitional element.  Referring to PIP and ESA is just the case manager desperately casting around for anything to say in order to explain a phenomenon s/he cannot understand.

Is it possible that something referred to in Reg 56 has happened - sustained drop in earnings or change to couple status?

Elliot Kent - 03 July 2024 04:04 PM

Might be worth kicking it to the partnership manager to try and get a quicker resolution.

Good shout Elliot might give that a go as well.

HB Anorak - 03 July 2024 07:13 PM

Is it possible that something referred to in Reg 56 has happened - sustained drop in earnings or change to couple status?

We quizzed the client quite closely about that and the only change in circumstances that’s occurred is that they’ve moved from one local authority area to another (that was what triggered their claim for UC in the first place back in September/October 2023).  They’ve since moved again within the local authority area but the small increase in rent (around £1pm) was correctly taken off their transitional protection correctly. They’ve not been working and not had a relationship break up/form.

CHAC Adviser - 03 July 2024 02:06 PM

Yes, feels as if they’ve just searched their own internal guidance (and I don’t think its from ADM as I couldn’t find it there) for “erosion” and posted whatever they found doesn’t it?

If it matters, it’s from some version of Annexe F, supplied here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidance_for_teams_working_on_ma?nocache=incoming-2347047#incoming-2346967
The example given on the following page from the quote might have assisted.

PS, was the SA on the April statement really given as £368.76, i.e. 2p higher than it should be?

JonUCN - 04 July 2024 12:55 PM

If it matters, it’s from some version of Annexe F, supplied here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidance_for_teams_working_on_ma?nocache=incoming-2347047#incoming-2346967
The example given on the following page from the quote might have assisted.

Yes! Funny how they missed that bit off.

JonUCN - 04 July 2024 12:55 PM

PS, was the SA on the April statement really given as £368.76, i.e. 2p higher than it should be?

No the statement has got the correct amount, that’s just my fat fingers hitting the wrong button.

Ha OK, I was just wondering if there were some weird manual adjustments going on.

For that guidance, I meant to add that it’s seemingly aimed at those who explain decisions, not those who make them. A previous version of it was entitled something like ‘Front of house’, which I take to mean ‘customer services’.