UC and if you go over 16k?

HillStreetBlues

huckster said:

As far as I understand it, you cannot go to tribunal as MR based on what you put forward was upheld in your favour.

What you need to ask for is a written statement of reason explaining the rationale of the decision, so you understand how capital needs to be calculated and reported in future UC assessment periods.

Agreed. A SoR could be interesting read.

HillStreetBlues

blackstar said:

huckster said:

As far as I understand it, you cannot go to tribunal as MR based on what you put forward was upheld in your favour.

What you need to ask for is a written statement of reason explaining the rationale of the decision, so you understand how capital needs to be calculated and reported in future UC assessment periods.

So no way to make a tribunal case then?

I would avoid a tribunal like a plague unless you have to.  DM guidance has no meaning to a tribunal, what H1050 states is irrelevant to court proceedings.

blackstar

Appeal against the way the DWP system is designed that lead to having to have a MR?

HillStreetBlues

blackstar said:

Appeal against the way the DWP system is designed that lead to having to have a MR?

That's not an appeal. You could try court action stating their policy doesn't comply with the law, but that would take very deep pockets.

blackstar

Thanks. How do you make an SOR? 

blackstar

HillStreetBlues said:

blackstar said:

huckster said:

As far as I understand it, you cannot go to tribunal as MR based on what you put forward was upheld in your favour.

What you need to ask for is a written statement of reason explaining the rationale of the decision, so you understand how capital needs to be calculated and reported in future UC assessment periods.

So no way to make a tribunal case then?

I would avoid a tribunal like a plague unless you have to.  DM guidance has no meaning to a tribunal, what H1050 states is irrelevant to court proceedings.

Can I ask why you would avoid a tribunal like the plauge?

If I did make a tribunal application would my UC be put on hold.?

HillStreetBlues

blackstar said:

HillStreetBlues said:

blackstar said:

huckster said:

As far as I understand it, you cannot go to tribunal as MR based on what you put forward was upheld in your favour.

What you need to ask for is a written statement of reason explaining the rationale of the decision, so you understand how capital needs to be calculated and reported in future UC assessment periods.

So no way to make a tribunal case then?

I would avoid a tribunal like a plague unless you have to.  DM guidance has no meaning to a tribunal, what H1050 states is irrelevant to court proceedings.

Can I ask why you would avoid a tribunal like the plauge?

If I did make a tribunal application would my UC be put on hold.?

Because I'm not sure the DWP are legally correct to always leave the whole income in tact at the end of an AP. In legacy benefits case law in mixed accounts state income is spend first. I haven't seen anything that would stop that case law being applied to UC. The DWP seem to read H1050 as all income is left over from an AP, even though the example of H1050 reads that spending is from income. A Tribunal won't look at DWP policy or how a DM interprets H1050, it will look only at the legal side, and if case law states income is spent before capital the lower tribunal is bound by that.

You can only appeal if you think the decision is legally wrong, as the MR has come back saying there will no deductions and certain capital is disregarded. you would need to argue that there should be deductions or capital isn't  disregarded

Newcad

blackstar said:

Thanks. How do you make an SOR? 

Just ask on your journal for a Statement of Reasons for the MR decision.

However I don't think that the DWP have any legal obligation to give a SoR for a MR, so they may refuse. (Or in the worst case may even just ignore the request).

TBH I'm cynical and think it more likely that they'll just give you some more gobbledygook that doesn't clarify anything at all.

NedS

@blackstar what you could do is make a Freedom of Information request on how UC calculates/verifies capital and how they ensure they are not including income in that amount when doing so.

Writing good FOI's is a bit of a dark art, and work best when only a single very specific question is asked, but they can be a good way of (a) obtaining information, and more importantly (b) sometimes as a result DWP/UC realise they've been doing it wrong or have no procedure in place which prompts an internal review leading to an improvement.

The trick is to write a loaded question. How does UC ensure they are not including income in the capital amount when there is no option to declare income received when declaring all "monies, assets and investments" ('capital')?

Of course there should be no need for the claimant to declare income received, as (a) DWP should already have a full record of any income received, and (b) it should also be evident on bank statements provided to verify said capital, if they actually took the time to look.

I think our friend @Yamor has experience of writing FOI requests and may be able to help draft something?

blackstar

NedS said:

@blackstar what you could do is make a Freedom of Information request on how UC calculates/verifies capital and how they ensure they are not including income in that amount when doing so.

Writing good FOI's is a bit of a dark art, and work best when only a single very specific question is asked, but they can be a good way of (a) obtaining information, and more importantly (b) sometimes as a result DWP/UC realise they've been doing it wrong or have no procedure in place which prompts an internal review leading to an improvement.

The trick is to write a loaded question. How does UC ensure they are not including income in the capital amount when there is no option to declare income received when declaring all "monies, assets and investments" ('capital')?

Of course there should be no need for the claimant to declare income received, as (a) DWP should already have a full record of any income received, and (b) it should also be evident on bank statements provided to verify said capital, if they actually took the time to look.

I think our friend @Yamor has experience of writing FOI requests and may be able to help draft something?

Yes I am happy to submit a FOI request about this issue, if Yamor is happy to compose a draft that would be great.

Excellent idea Ned.

What would annoy me is if they say something like "the customer simply needs to submit a journal message requesting a DM to remove income and then provide bank statements and a decision will be made".....