UC Claim ended as I hadn’t accepted commitments

YorkieDave

I’ve mistakenly not accepted my commitments and my claim has been closed. My only defence is that I don’t log on very often as I am working and currently receiving zero. So I only definitely log on to put in my income each month and check my journal then. I’ve not received any emails telling me to log on that I can find. A warning would be handy. However, I totally accept I should log on more often. So I am very upset with myself. I’ve rung and asked for a mandatory reconsideration. Has anybody had any success with a reconsideration like this? Thanks in advance. 

Newcad

Had you had attended your commitments interview, but hadn't then accepted them in your journal?

Or had your existing commitments changed and you didn't notice/accept the change?
All Claimant Commitments have a standard requirement that you will sign into your account often and "complete all activities in my to-do list".

You would have got a warning - on your journal.

To be frank I wouldn't see a MR coming to any different decision here.

You would have to show 'Good Reason' why you didn't accept your Claimant Commitments for an MR to be in your favour, and from what you have said then you don't appear to have any good reason for not doing so, unless there is something you haven't told us that prevented you from signing in to your account?

I'd say that if you want to keep claiming UC then you would be better to reclaim now rather than waiting for any MR outcome.
The notification that your entitlement had been ended should tell you how to reclaim.

PS. For anyone wanting to avoid such a mistake, In your UC account 'Report a change of circumstances' section you can use the 'Contact' option to set up how they should contact you.
I have mine set to send me a text message when there is something new on my to-do's or on my journal that needs my attention, that way I never miss anything important..

Robbie64

Am I right in thinking that the OP can simply make a new claim to set things rolling and then also put in a Mandatory Reconsideration against the decision to close the original claim?

(out of interest: is the claim as a result of being on a legacy benefit / tax credit and being asked to make a claim for UC - that will entail more than just starting a new claim)

YorkieDave

Robbie64 said:

Am I right in thinking that the OP can simply make a new claim to set things rolling and then also put in a Mandatory Reconsideration against the decision to close the original claim?

(out of interest: is the claim as a result of being on a legacy benefit / tax credit and being asked to make a claim for UC - that will entail more than just starting a new claim)

That would be useful to know. 

It is a result of a legacy benefit and I would exceed the capital allowance if it counts as a new claim. So I’m guessing there’s no point in that.!

HillStreetBlues

YorkieDave said:

Robbie64 said:

Am I right in thinking that the OP can simply make a new claim to set things rolling and then also put in a Mandatory Reconsideration against the decision to close the original claim?

(out of interest: is the claim as a result of being on a legacy benefit / tax credit and being asked to make a claim for UC - that will entail more than just starting a new claim)

That would be useful to know. 

It is a result of a legacy benefit and I would exceed the capital allowance if it counts as a new claim. So I’m guessing there’s no point in that.!

If you have over £16k then you wou0ldn't be able to put in a new claim as you wouldn't be entitled to UC.
If you give more details (time-frames), on what happens people could advise better on an MR and if needed an appeal.

Newcad

Ouch, yes.

If this was a migration from TC with over £16k savings then I'm pretty sure that the disqualification of entitlement would mean that no new claim / reclaim was possible because the savings disregard would no longer apply to a new claim -because it would no longer be a Managed Migration so would come under normal UC entitlement rules.

In which case MR is the only hope, but as I said I would not expect that to change anything in these circumstances.

Newcad

Robbie64 said:

Am I right in thinking that the OP can simply make a new claim to set things rolling and then also put in a Mandatory Reconsideration against the decision to close the original claim?

Yes and if a new claim / reclaim is possible then it's often (but not always) the best strategy to use.

(That 'not always' could be for various reasons, usually to do with maintaining special entitlement such as the savings disregard).

Yamor

Although DWP practice and guidance is clear that an updated claimant commitment can be imposed without a meeting, and must be accepted by the claimant, failing which the claim will be terminated, there is actually case law which suggests this is not the case:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624313f4e90e075f07426e2f/CUC_1792_2020_UA_2020_001580.pdf

I think this case may well have been wrongly decided, as there does not seem to be a requirement for a meeting to take place before a new claimant commitments is drawn up, however, it is certainly worth doing an MR/appeal referring to this case law.

Another point to consider is whether the new claimant commitment was even different to the original one - I have seen cases where they have not changed, but the system still recognises it as a new claimant commitment. If this is the case, then you have even stronger grounds for your MR/appeal.

I should say that all the above is predicated on this being a case of an updated claimant commitment. However, you mention that you are "currently receiving zero". If that is the case, then this may well not be an updated claimant commitment, but rather the first claimant commitment of what is technically a new claim. If this is the case, it will be more difficult to win.

xxxxxxxx

You said you were receiving £0.00.  Why were you receiving £0.00?  If you were receiving £0.00, why do you care that the UC was closed?  If it wasn't for the commitments they probably would have closed the UC anyway for earning too much.

A lot more information would be useful here.