Claim suspended for notsupplying evidence requested in letter I've never received

gilbutre

Just received a letter announcing my Housing Benefit was suspended because I failed to provide evidence requested in a letter that I have actually never received.

The exact same thing ALREADY happened to me several years ago: claim suspended for failing to give evidence requested in a mail that I've never received.

I find it absolutely brillant to be financially punished by the council for the failures of Royal Mail. What an excellent system isn't it?

I'll call tomorrow but I guess I'm just f***ed again.

TELLIT01

All the council knew was that requested information hadn't been received. They had no way of knowing if you hadn't bothered to respond or if you hadn't received the letter.
What we found amazing when I worked for DWP, was that so many letters requesting information weren't received, but letters telling people their benefit was being suspended always seemed to get through.

PersianCatLady

gilbutre wrote: »

Just received a letter announcing my Housing Benefit was suspended because I failed to provide evidence requested in a letter that I have actually never received.

The exact same thing ALREADY happened to me several years ago: claim suspended for failing to give evidence requested in a mail that I've never received.

I find it absolutely brillant to be financially punished by the council for the failures of Royal Mail. What an excellent system isn't it?

I'll call tomorrow but I guess I'm just f***ed again.

Did the council not tell you on the original claim form the evidence that you would need to provide them with for them to assess your claim?

gilbutre

TELLIT01 wrote: »

All the council knew was that requested information hadn't been received. They had no way of knowing if you hadn't bothered to respond or if you hadn't received the letter.
What we found amazing when I worked for DWP, was that so many letters requesting information weren't received, but letters telling people their benefit was being suspended always seemed to get through.

Well I can't speak for the rest of the people but I know for a fact that I did receive the suspension letters and not the request letters.

@PersianCatLady:

My claim isn't recent, what's recent is a change of circumstances I reported online. I then sent payslips by post and they sent them back. Next thing I know, my claim's suspended.

Have they not heard about something called "email"? Why relying on a single, flawed communication channel for something as important as sustenance means?

PersianCatLady

gilbutre wrote: »

Well I can't speak for the rest of the people but I know for a fact that I did receive the suspension letters and not the request letters.

@PersianCatLady:

My claim isn't recent, what's recent is a change of circumstances I reported online. I then sent payslips by post and they sent them back. Next thing I know, my claim's suspended.

Have they not heard about something called "email"? Why relying on a single, flawed communication channel for something as important as sustenance means?

I am confused now, are they saying that they have suspended your claim because they are saying that they didn't receive the payslips or are they claiming that you failed to send in some other evidence?

Bogalot

Have you called to tell them an error has been made? Do you know what the information is and have it in the post?

It's frustrating but you need to focus on getting the problem resolved as quickly as possible.

rockingbilly

gilbutre wrote: »

Well I can't speak for the rest of the people but I know for a fact that I did receive the suspension letters and not the request letters.

@PersianCatLady:

My claim isn't recent, what's recent is a change of circumstances I reported online. I then sent payslips by post and they sent them back. Next thing I know, my claim's suspended.

Have they not heard about something called "email"? Why relying on a single, flawed communication channel for something as important as sustenance means?

As has been mentioned in another post, this 30 day rule applies to ALL benefit claims council & DWP. Very rarely do the DWP specifically point out in a letter what will happen if a reply isn't received.
I too have been a victim of this in a slightly different way - not receiving a decision notice. The DWP refused to believe that it had not been received so they refused a late appeal (submitted 5 weeks after the 30 days had elapsed) as my 'excuse' was not good enough!

This 30 day rule is very much one sided for the council & DWP. Their post is DEEMED to have been delivered within 48 hours of being posted. Try using that argument on the DWP when they say that they haven't received your letter (unless you can prove absolutely that not only was it posted but that it was also signed for at the DWP office).

POPPYOSCAR

gilbutre wrote: »

Well I can't speak for the rest of the people but I know for a fact that I did receive the suspension letters and not the request letters.

@PersianCatLady:

My claim isn't recent, what's recent is a change of circumstances I reported online. I then sent payslips by post and they sent them back. Next thing I know, my claim's suspended.

Have they not heard about something called "email"? Why relying on a single, flawed communication channel for something as important as sustenance means?

When briefly applying for JSA my daughter was supposedly sent a text which she never received and because she did not respond then got a letter saying her claim was not allowed.

It took my OH several phone calls one of which the phone was put down on him for no good reason and registering a complaint to get her claim reinstated and backdated.

So no one method of communication is foolproof it would seem.

Mersey_2

Sadly, some Councils seem to be worse than the DWP.


DWP sometimes just don't send letters out sadly (I dealt with an Appeal for a Claimant at First Tier Tribunal where the District Judge ruled that the letter had not been sent, after the DWP failed to provide any evidence it had been).


Yes, the 'postal rule' is still used a lot, but it's worth pursuing as some DWP letters are produced on their system and never sent out. Conversely, with UC we see the opposite problem. Letters go out via Wolvs and claimants or advisors are told, "oh, just ignore that - it was the system that generated it."


With Councils it seems to be more an issue that post takes an age to get to residents, eg in Liverpool it takes over 2 weeks due to the council's postal service.


[Incidentally, it's important to remember that the DWP Service Standards state that they are meant to reply to correspondence within 15 days and delay is maladministration.]

gilbutre

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I am confused now, are they saying that they have suspended your claim because they are saying that they didn't receive the payslips or are they claiming that you failed to send in some other evidence?

I can only assume they requested some other evidence that the one they received and sent back, although I have no idea what that may be since this evidence seemed pretty unambiguous to me.

rockingbilly

Mersey wrote: »

Sadly, some Councils seem to be worse than the DWP.


DWP sometimes just don't send letters out sadly (I dealt with an Appeal for a Claimant at First Tier Tribunal where the District Judge ruled that the letter had not been sent, after the DWP failed to provide any evidence it had been).

[Incidentally, it's important to remember that the DWP Service Standards state that they are meant to reply to correspondence within 15 days and delay is maladministration.]

The evidence they used to dispute my 'excuse' was that it was noted on the file cover that the decision was posted on a particular day. Whether that was actually true or not who knows - that was their story and they stuck to it.
In all of the past 22 years that I have been at the beck and call of the DWP NEVER has there been a time that I received a reply to either a phone call or a letter by the 15th day.
I have no idea what planet they are living on.