UC - asking a vulnerable lady of state pension age to attend interviews and look for work?

Lililoo

Hello, I'm writing on behalf of two friends of mine. They aren't very good with tech. 

Some background: My friends are a couple living together. The man (let's call him G) and the lady (let's call her L) are 65 and 66 years old respectively. G was in the support group for ESA until L reached state pension age late last year, they received the couples rate for this. Due to this, their claim was moved to a 'mixed-age couple' claim for UC. G's daughter is doing all of the online stuff for their UC claim as they are unable to use computers effectively. 

The problem is, the DWP are having regular phone calls with L (state pension age) asking what she is doing to find work. There was a phone call from the DWP for L yesterday, they asked her questions such as 'how long do you watch TV for', 'what housework do you do', 'how often do you shower'. This sounds like a health assessment? L has what I would think is the early stages of dementia. The problem is, she is terrified of doctors and G cannot get her to go. She was giving conflicting information to the DWP over the phone. They ended up asking her what day of the week it was, and she could not answer. G also had to take the phone from her and correct the incorrect info L gave due to her poor memory. She is also waiting on a hip replacement, her mobility is extremely low. The DWP have asked her to attend the job centre monthly and the next appointment is at the end of May. I find all of this totally inappropriate. 

Everything I have read online states that the older person who is of pension age is not required to do any of these activities? Is this still the case? It has been mentioned to them numerous times about L's health and age and no one seems to be listening. G's daughter is also writing in the online UC journal about it all, and no one seems to be listening. L ended up suicidal yesterday running down the road crying, she is completely confused by the entire process and thinks she will be responsible for them having no money. 

I've written to the MP about this, as it seems wrong, but it'll probably be a short while for a reply. Just wondering if these procedures are actually correct? 

Any help appreciated. 

calcotti

Instances like this really are awful. Shows a complete lack of knowledge of the law and is disgraceful (also shows a lack of common sense).

A person of state pension age has no work search or work related requirements and what you describe is clearly wrong. 

Refer them to Universal Credit Regulations 2013 regulation 89(1)(a)

89.—(1) A claimant falls within section 19 of the Act (claimants subject to no work-related requirements) if—.
(a) the claimant has reached the qualifying age for state pension credit;

What does her claimant commitment say?

Do either of them receive a disability benefit?

If she has declared a health condition she will still need to have a work capability assessment to determine entitlement to the LCWRA element (unless she receives the enhanced rate of Daily Living PIP in which case she should automatically be treated as having LCWRA).

Lililoo

calcotti said:

Instances like this really are awful. Shows a complete lack of knowledge of the law and is disgraceful (also shows a lack of common sense).

A person of state pension age has no work search or work related requirements and what you describe is clearly wrong. 

Refer them to Universal Credit Regulations 2013 regulation 89(1)(a)

89.—(1) A claimant falls within section 19 of the Act (claimants subject to no work-related requirements) if—.
(a) the claimant has reached the qualifying age for state pension credit;

What does her claimant commitment say?

Do either of them receive a disability benefit?

If she has declared a health condition she will still need to have a work capability assessment to determine entitlement to the LCWRA element (unless she receives the enhanced rate of Daily Living PIP in which case she should automatically be treated as having LCWRA).

Thank you for your reply. I don't have all of the info. Normally, I'd go round and help with everything and check all of their paperwork, but due to the pandemic, I'm not as able to get into the nitty-gritty of it all as much as I'd like. 

Neither of them are receiving disability benefits (like PIP or AA). I have encouraged G to apply, and believe L should apply for something also. 

I will ask what her claimant commitment states. As it stands at present, G has declared health conditions and is classed as LCWRA, The DWP are aware of L's hip condition only. This is in part, due to L's fear of medical appointments. Sadly, she rarely goes to a doctor, and only went due to the deterioration in her hip, and that was after years of pain. 

Lililoo

As requested, here is L's Claimant Commitment 

calcotti

Number of issues here.

Work requirements: The Claimant Commitment is not appropriate for a person of pension age. As they have no work related requirements (see regulation I quoted previously) they shouldn't have a work coach. I would expect the Claimant Commitment to say nothing much more than the second bit about using the account. I suggest posting a journal message quoting the regulation I referenced and stating that in accordance with that regulation she should have no work related requirements and that the Claimant Commitment is probably inappropriate and should be revised.

Health issues: Only one LCWRA element can be paid to a couple. As G already gets LCWRA there is no point in L reporting her health issues. Being assessed cannot result in any additional money and as she shouldn't have any work related requirements due to her age there is no gain in being assessed.

Disability benefits: If they do wish to apply it would be PIP for G and AA for L.

Lililoo

Thank you so much for clearing this up. 

I've since found out a little more from G's daughter. She stated that the claim went in on the 28th October, this was only a few days before L's 66th, and thus her state pension age birthday. I think this is where the problem has come from. However, her Claimant Commitment was accepted by an agent almost 2 weeks after she turned pension age. So this highlights a problem with the system generally. It has been mentioned before in the journal about her age, but G's daughter has since updated today it to include the regulation you mentioned. 

I will advise G on PIP and AA. 

Thank you once again. I just hope they actually pay attention to L's age finally an cancel all future booked requirements of her. 

tomtom256

Tell them to check guidance, the pensioner should have their LMR overridden to no work related requirements and problem is solved.

calcotti

The original UC software didn't flag up when claimants reached pension age. I thought this had been fixed but perhaps not.

(As an aside, I don't know why they moved to UC. I would have thought they could have kept the ESA claim as that belonged to G who is not yet pension age. However that is academic because what's done is done.)

tomtom256

calcotti said:

The original UC software didn't flag up when claimants reached pension age. I thought this had been fixed but perhaps not.

(As an aside, I don't know why they moved to UC. I would have thought they could have kept the ESA claim as that belonged to G who is not yet pension age. However that is academic because what's done is done.)

It should flag up on a new claim, but wont flag up, if they have claimed prior to reaching state pension age.

Lililoo

tomtom256 said:

calcotti said:

The original UC software didn't flag up when claimants reached pension age. I thought this had been fixed but perhaps not.

(As an aside, I don't know why they moved to UC. I would have thought they could have kept the ESA claim as that belonged to G who is not yet pension age. However that is academic because what's done is done.)

It should flag up on a new claim, but wont flag up, if they have claimed prior to reaching state pension age.

However, it has been written in the journal many times about L's age, and on the phone with the DWP more than once. No one seems to have done anything about it on their end. Hopefully now with the regulation quotes in the journal today they will actually, finally, stop requesting L attend work related appointments/calls.

Lililoo

calcotti said:

(As an aside, I don't know why they moved to UC. I would have thought they could have kept the ESA claim as that belonged to G who is not yet pension age. However that is academic because what's done is done.)

G said he received a letter from the DWP early 2020 saying that because they will become a 'mixed-age couple' when L reaches state pension age and that due to this they must claim UC.