Deductions from JSA continuing following debt relief order

Has anyone else seen problems with these continuing, despite the DWP losing in the Supreme Court?

We have someone who is having £13 a fortnight deducted from JSA towards a social fund debt even though a DRO is in force. The DWP keep claiming to be looking into it but seem to be unable to stop it and blame their computer. But we also suspect they are not trying as hard as they claim.

What is the next step in erms of legal action? Is county court action the correct route or would it have to be JR?

I think it’s county court, but before (or whilst) looking at court action, if I were the relevant DRO intermediary I’d be strenuously escalating a formal DWP complaint, preferably with my MP’s input, citing their own guidance HB/CTB U6/2011:

2. On 14 December 2011 the Supreme Court affirmed unanimously the decisions of the lower Courts. This means that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cannot recover overpayments of benefit or Social Fund loans by deductions from benefit where that overpayment or loan has been included in the DRO

... and also be reporting the DWP as a naughty creditor to the DRO Unit, and ask the insolvency service to take action to prevent and reverse the DWP’s unlawful recovery. The legal position is crystal clear, a response of “looking into it” should be met with “you are being unlawful, I need to speak to your manager”. Once you verify from someone more knowledgeable than me the right legal recourse, consider framing every letter of complaint as a letter-before-action.

(this is all assuming the full SF debt was actually listed. Unlike bankruptcy, only explicitly-listed debts can be included)

and late-night edit: I’m not sure this is the right bit of RN for this question, or even if RN is the right venue. As a DRO intermediary, I’d be either asking SSU or ringing the DRO Unit about this. And if you’re not the intermediary yourselves, then you need to call them in.

Thanks, will do the above. I was particularly interested in whether this is widespread, but I cannot find any evidence that it is. We were initially given a BS explanation that it is allowed because it is a ‘government debt’, which is quite suspicious, but the person might have just made that up on the spot.