Universal Credit for 17 year old

calcotti

tomtom256 said:.

She can only be waiting for a WCA once she has been referred and there is nothing in guidance to support alowing the claim until a referral has been made.

Which is exactly the problem. Unless it’s possible to allow the claim pending the WCA it is actually impossible to meet this condition therefore, logically, the law must envisage allowing the claim in this situation even if DWP have not written express guidance.

poppy12345

tomtom256 said:

sportsarb said:

But she would be meeting this bit that you yourself quoted:
'...you have medical evidence and are waiting for a Work Capability Assessment"'

But she isn't, as she hasn't been referred for a WCA, so in the eyes of the DWP she isn't waiting for one.

She can only be waiting for a WCA once she has been referred and there is nothing in guidance to support alowing the claim until a referral has been made.

I would agree with this. The way to go here would most likely be to claim New style ESA as a NI credits only claim first.

Robbie64

Does your daughter have access to an online UC account? If she has submit a Mandatory Reconsideration request via her online journal and request a WCA. If necessary complete a UC50 form which might kick start the WCA though the Jobcentre may refuse to take the form.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uc50-form-universal-credit-capability-for-work-questionnaire

The DWP are supposed to start the WCA process and keep the claim open while that is ongoing. Your daughter should then receive ESA until at least the WCA is complete.

If you have any problems I suggest either contacting Citizens Advice (who have a contract with the DWP to assist with the making of UC claims including helping ironing out any problems) or your local MP. The latter might just help give the whole process a push - the DWP usually deal with MP queries quite quickly and it helps to focus the mind of the Case Manager at the DWP.

The part about the claim being refused because she has parental support suggests that there is a training issue with whoever made the decision at the DWP. Or possibly the call handler who might have been second guessing the reasons for the decision.The person is obviouslyunaware of the full range of circumstances in which a 16 or 17 year old can claim UC.

sportsarb

tomtom256 said:

sportsarb said:

tomtom256 said:

She doesnt meet this "you have limited capability for work or you have medical evidence and are waiting for a Work Capability Assessment" as she will only get this following a work capability assessment.

And unless she meets any of the other criteria she isn't technically eligible to claim until she is 18.

But she would be meeting this bit that you yourself quoted:
'...you have medical evidence and are waiting for a Work Capability Assessment"'

But she isn't, as she hasn't been referred for a WCA, so in the eyes of the DWP she isn't waiting for one.

She can only be waiting for a WCA once she has been referred and there is nothing in guidance to support alowing the claim until a referral has been made.

Unless the DWP have been insanely stupid about how they have written the regulations, or they may have done it intentionally, then once you have claimed a benefit for reasons of being unable to work then you are awaiting a WCA. You can't claim Income Related ESA in most circumstances now but I see it as no different as how things operated on that benefit for 16-17yo people, you made a claim and supplied medical evidence and were paid until the WCA took place where you got placed in a group or were disallowed entitlement. EDIT: Just to add that there were of course other conditions that had to be met like the parent/s or guardian couldn't be receiving ChB for the young person, but that already seems to have been stopped in this particular case.

It shouldn't be given some weird meaning, referral for a WCA isn't a magical process, it is literally initiating the process by advising medical support services (I will use that as the catch all term for the team/s that are involved in WCA's) that one is required. If the medical condition is one that is expected to be long term then this should be done on day one really. These used to be referred to as R4 and R10 conditions (Not sure if UC still uses that terminology). R4 was short term conditions where you're expected to be off benefit so referral doesn't happen until 28 days have elapsed, R10 was then longer term and therefore you immediately refer for WCA.

Granted, UC might make different judgements on terminology, but where it specifically phrases it like it does 'you have medical evidence and are waiting for a Work Capability Assessment'  which is similar to phrasing ESA used then I think it is fair to expect them to be making payment in OP's case.

calcotti

Thanks spoonie, very well put.
Slightly off OP topic but confirming that there are still day 1 and day 29 referrals
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0980/148._Work_Capability_Assessments_v14.0.pdf
"When are claimants referred for a Work Capability Assessment 
In most cases, claimants are referred to the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments at day 29 of their health condition related claim.
 
An immediate Work Capability Assessment referral must be made when a claimant provides sufficient information to confirm they have certain specified conditions or are undergoing certain specified treatments so they can be treated as having: 
   limited capability for work and work related activity 
   limited capability for work 
This is known as a Day 1 referral. "

sportsarb

Thanks for confirming that it is still a thing on UC.
From everything that has been referenced, and looking at the ADM, I can't see how it could be concluded that the OP's daugther isn't entitled. I would agree with the advice of others that OP should ask for an MR, involve their MP, and push as hard as necessary to get the desired result.

If the DWP have engineered it in such a way that 16 and 17 year olds now can't receive benefit in the way they could on ESA then it just confirms everything I already thought I knew about the government when it comes to benefit provision.

Galloglass

sportsarb said:

If the DWP have engineered it in such a way that 16 and 17 year olds now can't receive benefit in the way they could on ESA then it just confirms everything I already thought I knew about the government when it comes to benefit provision.

Parliament and the government rely on legal draughtsmen to suggest how the law should work. Committees vary it. Parliament/The Lords then tinker. Trying to suggest there is a conspiracy is a bit beyond reality.

Why not take the alternative view that the MP's we get are the ones we vote for. If we get stupid ones, we have only ourselves to blame.

sportsarb

Galloglass said:

sportsarb said:

If the DWP have engineered it in such a way that 16 and 17 year olds now can't receive benefit in the way they could on ESA then it just confirms everything I already thought I knew about the government when it comes to benefit provision.

Parliament and the government rely on legal draughtsmen to suggest how the law should work. Committees vary it. Parliament/The Lords then tinker. Trying to suggest there is a conspiracy is a bit beyond reality.

Why not take the alternative view that the MP's we get are the ones we vote for. If we get stupid ones, we have only ourselves to blame.

I haven't even come close to suggesting that there was a conspiracy though, how you have concluded that I have is beyond me, the DWP is headed by a government minister. What I was saying is that if they (DWP and the government by extension) have intentionally written the rules, or there is a proviso somewhere else that I am not aware of, that prevents 16 and 17 year olds who are ill from getting sickness benefit then it confirms for me what I already thought I knew. That's not a conspiracy, it is proven intent at that point. However, if you take what I wrote in your selective quote, with everything I wrote above it, then I think that 16 and 17 year olds DO have a route to entitlement for the reasons I outlined.

tomtom256

The legislation is written around youngsters "having" to stay in education until their 18, which is why I think this scenario causes the issue it does, as it was written as 1 for all rule.

They are not written by normal people who understand real life scenarios, they are written by people who have a silver spoon.

Section 8 and section 9, I think they are now called, referrals do exist for day 1 WCA referrals, however guidance/policy states they are not entitled unless they already have a LCW/LCWRA and not waiting for 1 as per gov.uk and that is where the problem is.

I believe until it is challenged and case law/precedence is set, the issue won't get resolved.

In my jobcentre, we tend to allow the claim and advise that if they fail the WCA, their claim will close and that they would then do an MR/appeal. However stance from DWP legal, is to close the claim, unless they have already received a payment.

calcotti

tomtom256 said:

Section 8 and section 9, I think they are now called, referrals do exist for day 1 WCA referrals, however guidance/policy states they are not entitled unless they already have a LCW/LCWRA and not waiting for 1 as per gov.uk and that is where the problem is.

Which confirms me in my opinion that the guidance does not reflect the intention of the law.