Second interview under cautionMy partner was interviewed 8 weeks ago by DWP as they claim he has not

bigbill

A subject access or data protection request costs a maximum of £10 and would in theory give you everything the DWP hold on you?

I take it the pension was over £85 weekly?

Tromsogirl

Thank you big bill very much. I'll look into subject access or data protection requests. Yes. The payment was over £85 a week and now it's less than that a fortnight.

TELLIT01

Tromsogirl wrote: »

Thank you big bill very much. I'll look into subject access or data protection requests. Yes. The payment was over £85 a week and now it's less than that a fortnight.

I don't understand. Are you saying that his pension has now decreased? If so do you know why that has happened?

aaronlowe

Tromsogirl wrote: »

Aaronlowe- through research I have found that there is a form you can use to apply to DWP for transcripts of phone calls. I'm in the process of completing it.

I am amazed sometimes what I learn here. Thanks for that tipbit

bigbill

Under £85 weekly should be ignored in full if your sure he is / was on Contribution Based ESA?

If over £85 weekly then 50% of this extra is taken from his CBESA.

dippy3103

Tromsogirl wrote: »

Thank you big bill very much. I'll look into subject access or data protection requests. Yes. The payment was over £85 a week and now it's less than that a fortnight.

Do you mean the ESA was over £85 and has now reduced?

Tromsogirl

The ESA was over £85 a wekk now it's less than £85 a week. Please can you tell me what the significance of £85 is please. Thanks x

Tromsogirl

Bigbill- I'm not understandin the £85 or CBESA. Sorry but thank you for posting x

Ames

Tromsogirl wrote: »

Bigbill- I'm not understandin the £85 or CBESA. Sorry but thank you for posting x

£85 is the amount of pension, not ESA. Is the pension above or below £85? Because that determines how it affects ESA.

CBESA is contribution bases ESA, it's for people who have paid the right amount of national insurance. As Bigbill says, how it's affected by a pension depends on how much the pension is. If the pension is less than £85 a week then it's not affected, if the pension is above £85 then it is.

dippy3103

aaronlowe wrote: »

If you are sanctioned this is typically done by computer based on the information provided by you - not a human. This is why it comes across as heartless, because it literally is. Don't be disheartened. You can always ask for any sanction (or even any decision effecting you) to be checked by a "decision maker". This gives you another chance to explain your situation as the original sanction will not have taken this into account.

In my experience decision makers rarely change a decision even when it seems an obvious error. But it's better to challenge it than do nothing. If you do nothing it looks like you're accepting the DWP's interpretation of the events..

Not totally accurate.

In the context of an IUC any sanction decision is taken by the fraud team leader - and in this instance it would be a prosecution or an administrative penalty if the fraud team leader felt there was a case to answer. There may a a loss of benefit strike on top of that if an ad pen were accepted or a prosecution brought.

It doesn’t sound as if there is any dispute re the basic facts (ie an overpayment caused by an Occ pen not being taken into account) and that this really comes down to if it was declared and if not why not.