Benefits suspended

WhenIam64

I suggest you request a Mandatory Reconsideration of the decision on the grounds that you are entitled to claim benefits because you have right to reside while awaiting the Home Office decision on your current application as detailed in the law you have referred to.

It most likely said that on your letter. Perhaps you can confirm.

So it should continue, any immigration lawyer whether they be with citizens advice or not, should be familiar with this law.

I think you have a misplaced assumption about how widespread the skills are about immigration law. It is a very specialist area, made even more complex by shifting parameters.

The DWP will have specialists but if your MR is refused then you will have to go to a Tribunal which could take some time. Do you have funds to wait?

When people quote "the law" they fail to realise just how vast it is. It is simple in its construct but very deep, wide ... and slow.

leelask

Calcotti, this is what I am going to do.

And I am living with my sister atm, whenIam64, I don't really have a lot of funds but I can wait have no other choice really.

Thanks for your suggestions and help guys, I really do appreciate it!

11krage

When your circumstances changed you should have been referred for another habitual residence test. The decision maker would've then looked at all the evidence you provided and decided whether at that point you were eligible to receive UC. A decision letter would've then been posted on your journal saying yay or nay.

My concerns about what you've said is you mention you received benefits months after your visa expired. Did you tell them your visa expired at that point? Did you attend a habitual residence test after your visa expired? Have you received a decision letter on your journal saying what the decision maker decided following this HRT?

If you didn't remind them your visa expired, it's possible you're looking at an overpayment if they've decided you weren't eligible for UC following this change.

If you have had this habitual residence test following the change, and haven't received a decision letter it's possible the decision maker is still making their decision which would be why the claim is suspended (to see if you're eligible). I'd keep checking in with it just to check they're not waiting for further evidence from yourself. And also to check it has been sent to a decision maker.

You are able to ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a HRT decision, but you'd only be able to do this after the decision maker has made their decision so there's one to reconsider.

calcotti

11krage wrote: »

When your circumstances changed you should have been referred for another habitual residence test. The decision maker would've then looked at all the evidence you provided and decided whether at that point you were eligible to receive UC. A decision letter would've then been posted on your journal saying yay or nay.

My concerns about what you've said is you mention you received benefits months after your visa expired. Did you tell them your visa expired at that point? Did you attend a habitual residence test after your visa expired? Have you received a decision letter on your journal saying what the decision maker decided following this HRT?

If you didn't remind them your visa expired, it's possible you're looking at an overpayment if they've decided you weren't eligible for UC following this change.

If you have had this habitual residence test following the change, and haven't received a decision letter it's possible the decision maker is still making their decision which would be why the claim is suspended (to see if you're eligible). I'd keep checking in with it just to check they're not waiting for further evidence from yourself. And also to check it has been sent to a decision maker.

You are able to ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a HRT decision, but you'd only be able to do this after the decision maker has made their decision so there's one to reconsider.

I’m not sure you’ve picked up on everything OP has said.

My understanding is that she has had a decision from DWP saying they will not pay UC until Home Office issue a new visa. She therefore has a decision which she can request an MR for. The OP’s grounds for the MR are that she applied for a new visa before the old one expired and that by law she therefore retains the status of the old visa, even though it has expired, until a decision is made on her new visa application. See https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/immigration/problems-applications-documents/visa-delays/
The grounds for the MR are that as she was entitled to benefits on the old visa she is still entitled while waiting for a Home Office decision, because her status has not changed, and DWP are therefore incorrect to suspend her benefits.

All of this seems to be bureaucratic but actually relatively straightforward in principle (by which I do not mean to imply that it will be easy to sort out).

11krage

Official decisions from decision makers are usually not 'we are waiting for x evidence.' The op made no mention of a decision letter, only that they'd been asked for evidence.

Hence why I was asking whether they'd received a decision letter. The last thing they need is to find out the work coach hasn't followed the correct process.

I find this happens more often when one partner has only just applied for a nino which will either come in x months or not at all. The work coach will either not complete the claim while waiting for a nino (or worse suggest the eligible claimant makes a single claim!) The correct process being to refer to DM for HRT decision with or without a nino if one is not going to appear in a timely manner.

There's nothing to stop this having happened in the claimant's case.

Step one of this is to establish whether a HRT has taken place and whether a decision letter has been placed on the journal regarding the outcome (not just a comment from someone saying they're waiting for something).

Only after this has been established can we talk about possible MRs.

calcotti

11krage wrote: »

Official decisions from decision makers are usually not 'we are waiting for x evidence.' The op made no mention of a decision letter, only that they'd been asked for evidence.

I read this part of the opening post to mean that the evidence requested has been supplied and a decision to suspend payment made. If so that decision can be challenged.

leelask wrote: »

The benefits people ......asked for proof that I had applied within the time period before my visa expired. I supplied the proof but now they say they will only restart once I hear back from the home office.which is clearly against the law..

Either way the OP knows their situation and will hopefully have found some of the advice offered helpful.

Unfortunately HRT decision making under UC appears to be worse than under legacy benefits. Whether or not this decision is correct I do not know.

OhWow

leelask wrote: »

And the law I am talking about in the section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971.

3C is part of the UK Immigration rules. Don't those granted a 3 months Biometric Residence Permit in UK as they have claimed Domestic Violence, have something written on their BRP about being granted outside of the (immigration) rules?

This is way above the scope of this forum and as already suggested, you might need to talk to an immigration expert?