Daughters UC stopped

born_again

My daughter has been on uc for just over a year in lcwra group I think it is. She has been over to see her boyfriends family about 3 times during this time for 28 days or less, 

Could it be that they are looking at the number of times out of country & length of them. Given LCWRA?

Exodi

Haribo1 said:

They asked if she had been out of the country for more than 28 days which we said no as its always been under.

Someone suggests (linked below) that it's not 28 days, but I can see a few sources online that suggest LCWRA is limited to 4 weeks. Did the advisor specifically say 28 days?

I mean the dates you say, 29th December to 25th January is exactly 28 days, as you'd include both the departure and return date. I don't want to be captain hindsight here, but your daughter is playing with fire if she believed the limit was 28 days and went on a 28 day holiday. If it is more than 28 days as she believed, it would have only taken one delayed return flight to see her in trouble.

There's also the possibility that it may be 28 days or more. This might be a key point.

HillStreetBlues said:

With UC it's a month not 28 days  (the day of leaving and date of return are excluded)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/11

11.—(1) A person's temporary absence from Great Britain is disregarded in determining whether they meet the basic condition to be in Great Britain if—

(a)the person is entitled to universal credit immediately before the beginning of the period of temporary absence; and

(b)either—

(i)the absence is not expected to exceed, and does not exceed, one month, or:
ii)paragraph (3) or (4) applies.

HillStreetBlues

Exodi said:

Haribo1 said:

They asked if she had been out of the country for more than 28 days which we said no as its always been under.

Someone suggests (linked below) that it's not 28 days, but I can see a few sources online that suggest LCWRA is limited to 4 weeks. Did the advisor specifically say 28 days?

I mean the dates you say, 29th December to 25th January is exactly 28 days, as you'd include both the departure and return date. I don't want to be captain hindsight here, but your daughter is playing with fire if she believed the limit was 28 days and went on a 28 day holiday. If it is more than 28 days as she believed, it would have only taken one delayed return flight to see her in trouble.

You don't include departure and return dates, so OP's daughter would be classed as away for 26 days.

Exodi

HillStreetBlues said:

Exodi said:

Haribo1 said:

They asked if she had been out of the country for more than 28 days which we said no as its always been under.

Someone suggests (linked below) that it's not 28 days, but I can see a few sources online that suggest LCWRA is limited to 4 weeks. Did the advisor specifically say 28 days?

I mean the dates you say, 29th December to 25th January is exactly 28 days, as you'd include both the departure and return date. I don't want to be captain hindsight here, but your daughter is playing with fire if she believed the limit was 28 days and went on a 28 day holiday. If it is more than 28 days as she believed, it would have only taken one delayed return flight to see her in trouble.

You don't include departure and return dates, so OP's daughter would be classed as away for 26 days.

Sorry, do you have a source for this also?

HillStreetBlues

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661494/admc4.pdf

Days of arrival and departure
C4008 With regard to any particular day, a person should be regarded as present if they
are in GB for part of a day: thus the day when a person arrives in GB and a day
when they leave count as days when they are “in” GB.

Case law shows it's standard practice in regards to benefits.

Spoonie_Turtle

Exodi said:

Haribo1 said:

They asked if she had been out of the country for more than 28 days which we said no as its always been under.

Someone suggests (linked below) that it's not 28 days, but I can see a few sources online that suggest LCWRA is limited to 4 weeks. 

Just to clear this up, having LCWRA is part of claiming UC; the same rules apply to everyone claiming UC.

Exodi

HillStreetBlues said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661494/admc4.pdf

Days of arrival and departure
C4008 With regard to any particular day, a person should be regarded as present if they
are in GB for part of a day: thus the day when a person arrives in GB and a day
when they leave count as days when they are “in” GB.

Case law shows it's standard practice in regards to benefits.

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Exodi said:

Haribo1 said:

They asked if she had been out of the country for more than 28 days which we said no as its always been under.

Someone suggests (linked below) that it's not 28 days, but I can see a few sources online that suggest LCWRA is limited to 4 weeks. 

Just to clear this up, having LCWRA is part of claiming UC; the same rules apply to everyone claiming UC.

Thanks both

Haribo1

Been to the wfi with my daughter. Was told the wfi was to check that she was actually in the country as she had been on 5 overseas trips in the last year. Wanted to know the dates of the trips so I showed them her passport. They said they questioned her entitlement as she had been abroad so frequently. Told them I had checked and  that she had been advised she could travel frequently for up to 28 days as long as the journal was updated which it always is. 
No further appointments needed and payments reinstated.

Muttleythefrog

Haribo1 said:

Been to the wfi with my daughter. Was told the wfi was to check that she was actually in the country as she had been on 5 overseas trips in the last year. Wanted to know the dates of the trips so I showed them her passport. They said they questioned her entitlement as she had been abroad so frequently. Told them I had checked and  that she had been advised she could travel frequently for up to 28 days as long as the journal was updated which it always is. 
No further appointments needed and payments reinstated.

Pleased it seems sorted... yeah I was sort of thinking they may be questioning whether she is habitually resident here given the number of trips of significance especially given she had been declaring them.

HillStreetBlues

Muttleythefrog said:

Pleased it seems sorted... yeah I was sort of thinking they may be questioning whether she is habitually resident here given the number of trips of significance especially given she had been declaring them.

I think that's the only way they would know.