UC Overpayment Dispute

TheFlamingRed

Hello All

A friend of mine has asked me to draft up some letters regarding a Universal Credit (hereafter referred to as UC) overpayment dispute – not a system I have dealt with before. First however, let me give you some general history, I’ll keep names, dates and amounts simplified.

 

January 1st 2020: Miss X and Mr Y are in a relationship and are jointly claiming UC, and received £4000 that year.

January 1st 2021: Miss X and Mr Y separate, live separately and both have a single UC claim. Each receive £1000 between January 2021 and May 2021.

 

May 1st 2021: Mr Y is and has been a carer of Aunt Z since January 2020. However, Mr Y had not been receiving carers allowance as, at the time, Aunt Z was deemed to not in need of a carer. Aunt Z disputed this, and in May 2021, that decision was reversed. This meant, that Mr Y was entitled to Carers allowance (hereafter referred to as CA) and was awarded a backdated payment of CA of £3000 paid to him now.

 

May 2nd 2021: Because UC and CA don’t seem to know what each other does – it now sees £3000 go to Mr Y and realise “We’ve overpaid this guy’s UC by £2500 in the last year and a half!”, and begin their crusade of clawing the money back.

 

They decide:

Mr Y was overpaid £1000 too much in 2020.

Mr Y was overpaid £500 too much in 2021 so far.

Miss X was on a joint claim with Mr Y in 2020, so now claim she was overpaid £1000 too much in 2020.

 

Now, remembering that Mr Y received all £3000 well after the separation, the following can happen:

-          Mr Y is overjoyed. He now has £1500 extra after he pays his £1500 overpayment (rather then just benefiting the £500).

-          Miss X is livid – as her benefits are now docked for the foreseeable future as she pays back an overpayment she herself never saw a penny of.  

 

Now, I fully understand that an overpayment has occurred here – and this £2500 amount must be paid back – her argument is that this should be entirely on Mr Y as he received the entire overpayment after the separation.

 

She has pointed out this problem to her UC journal. UC’s reply was they didn’t care, and that because the overpayment ‘occurred’ during a joint claim, thus she must pay back half for that time period – regardless of above events.

 

She was given a phone number to appeal. That phone number only actually took payments and not complaints and was given another phone number. That phone number was no longer in service.

 

At this point, she asks me to write some formal complaint letters.

 

So I have the following questions:

1-      What is the likelihood of getting this resolved in anyway? From my experience, benefit disputes rarely ever succeed in any capacity, as they like to wipe their hands of any responsibility.

2-      Based on (1) and UC wash their hands of this, is this potentially going to need to be argued in small claims in some way (though I have no idea if there is any legal basis).

3-      Who on earth does one complain too these days. I can write a letter to her MP, but he’s a conservative in a safe seat so I’m guessing he won’t care and nothing will come from that. But as Miss X cannot even start a complaint by phone, I know not the best way to go about an official complaint. If anyone has any key addresses or persons to contact, it would be appreciated.

4-      Is there any other avenue one can take to get this issue sorted? I don’t know how common this is but a brief search so far hasn’t given me many similar cases.

5-      Is Miss X just screwed in this situation?

 

If anyone has any ideas/advice or avenues I can research into this matter, it would be appreciated.

 

(Side Note: Of course, all this could have easily been avoided if, instead of paying Mr Y £3000, UC and CA looked at this together and said “Why don’t we do the £3000 - £2500 and just pay Mr Y £500. But why make life simple for those on benefits?)

 

 

poppy12345

I'm finding that very difficult to follow. If ive read it correctly then DWP are correct and that because they were claiming UC as a couple then they would have been overpayed. This would mean that DWP are not at fault here, more so the EX partner is because they've kept all the CA when part of that should have gone to Miss X to compensate the overpayment. IMO there's nothing to dispute but other's may disagree.

TheFlamingRed

poppy12345 said:

This would mean that DWP are not at fault here, more so the EX partner is because they've kept all the CA when part of that should have gone to Miss X to compensate the overpayment. IMO there's nothing to dispute but other's may disagree.

Well, the DWP gave all £3000 to Mr Y after the seperation and gave nothing to Miss Y. Was there a legal reason for him to have shared that money? (as that could make this a civil case)

in the Contrapostitive - should DWP have divided this money and awarded part of it to Miss X directly? (If that was meant to happen, then there's a bigger complaint to be had then I first thought).

TheFlamingRed said:

Now, I fully understand that an overpayment has occurred here – and this £2500 amount must be paid back – her argument is that this should be entirely on Mr Y as he received the entire overpayment after the separation.

As I said, I am not aruging the overpayment exists - the arguement is that Miss X is now having to pay part of an overpayment she herself never recieved a part of.

calcotti

Unfortunately I believe DWP are legally correct to treat them as each liable for 50% of the overpayment - unfair though this is.
I also agree that it would be helpful if DWP matched the payments and only paid any money due instead of paying out and recovering. This used to work well between CA and ESA but doesn't happen with CA.

TheFlamingRed

calcotti said:

Unfortunately I believe DWP are legally correct to treat them as each liable for 50% of the overpayment - unfair though this is.
I also agree that it would be helpful if DWP matched the payments and only paid any money due instead of paying out and recovering. This used to work well between CA and ESA but doesn't happen with CA.

Wow. So there is no legitimate case here? Mr Y can go enjoy a nice holiday while Miss X decides which bills to not pay? Is there any available avenues to explore?

This is almost sounding like a perfect scam :O Mr Y has basically stole £1000 from Miss X via DWP.

calcotti

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#chapter-2--when-and-from-whom-do-we-seek-recovery

2.19
...where it involves an overpayment of Universal Credit. An overpayment of Universal Credit is recoverable from the person to whom it was paid except where the Universal Credit claim is for a couple. In these circumstances both members of the couple are the payee and will both be jointly and severally liable for the overpayment (references to claimant below include both members of a couple in joint claim cases)

2.22 Where an overpayment is recoverable from more than one person then certain changes in those persons’ circumstances or the relationship between them may alter the action taken to recover the debt:
a couple separate (applies to Universal Credit debt only) – when a couple separate and they have an overpayment for which they are jointly and severally liable, the debt is apportioned 50/50 on separation. Any single penny remaining after apportionment is written off. Once this apportionment has been done we will not reverse the split liability decision. Any debt for which only one member of a couple is liable will follow that person on separation

Icequeen1

calcotti said:

Unfortunately I believe DWP are legally correct to treat them as each liable for 50% of the overpayment - unfair though this is.
I also agree that it would be helpful if DWP matched the payments and only paid any money due instead of paying out and recovering. This used to work well between CA and ESA but doesn't happen with CA.

Would the addition of the carer's element not offset some of the increased income though? So the overpayment shouldn't be the full £3000?

EDITED: i guess it is possible they already had the carer's element included

TheFlamingRed

if "both members of the couple are the payee" - does that also mean that both should have been paid the backdated carers allwoance? (Because only one of them recieved that money)

calcotti

TheFlamingRed said:

if "both members of the couple are the payee" - does that also mean that both should have been paid the backdated cares allwoance?

No. Carer’s Allowance is claimed by one person and is only payable to one person.
UC is paid to one person but is claimed as a couple and both parties are treated as the payee.

Icequeen1

TheFlamingRed said:

if "both members of the couple are the payee" - does that also mean that both should have been paid the backdated carers allwoance? (Because only one of them recieved that money)

No, carer's allowance can only be paid to one person - the one doing the caring. It is their entitlement. It can't be split. The quote you give is referring to the overpayment of UC, not about carer's allowance. 

calcotti

Icequeen1 said:

calcotti said:

Unfortunately I believe DWP are legally correct to treat them as each liable for 50% of the overpayment - unfair though this is.
I also agree that it would be helpful if DWP matched the payments and only paid any money due instead of paying out and recovering. This used to work well between CA and ESA but doesn't happen with CA.

Would the addition of the carer's element not offset some of the increased income though? So the overpayment shouldn't be the full £3000?

EDITED: i guess it is possible they already had the carer's element included

£3000 over this period of time seems consistent with carer element having been taken into  account for the whole period.