UC and if you go over 16k?

blackstar

So @Yamor I have decided to put together a draft complaint that I can send to the DWP and also use for my MP and anyone else I cam think it might have a positive progressive impact too. 

I would appreciate it if @Yamor or anyone else can proof read it and alter or amend to make it better basically. So here it is. (Igmore the numbers) 

DWP computer system is designed with flaws.

5.1 Based on Rule H1050 

H1050 says, "Income becomes capital if it has not been spent by the end of the assessment period after the one in which it was received."

5.2 When making a "Money, Savings and Investments" declaration you are asked to input all your money, savings and investments you own at that particular point. 

At the end the DWP system adds it all together and states "your total money, savings and investments is..." and gives the total figure. 

Universal Credits considerers this figure as your total capital. 

5.3 However, the system is flawed as when making a money savings and investments declaration there are no boxes to include your income (Benefits/salary) you have received in that assessment period. 

5.4 Nor is there a box to include your cost of living payments if a customer has not spent them as they are indefinitely disregarded. Rule H1766 & H1767.

5.5 There is a box for a customer to include other things such as Welfare Support Payments which the system then automatically subtracts from your total money, savings and investments from the end total.

5.6 The figure the system generates is wrong as it is including a claimant’s income in the capital figure. Income is mot capital. 

5.7 The system is set up wrong, most people don't even realise it and as such claimants income is being considered as capital and claimants are therefore being underpaid and not getting their correct entitlement.

5.8 Claimants shouldn't be required to have thorough knowledge and understanding of the official guidance for DMs in order to get their real benefit entitlement.

They should be able to rely on the system to ask them for all the relevant information to get their correct entitlement.

5.9 As this total figure the system generates is assuming the claimants income salary is also part of the claimants capital, in many cases it will push their total incorrect capital to over 6k when in reality their capital is less than 6k

it then removes £4.35 from each £250 off the claimants incorrect capital calculation. 

 

UC reduces a claimant’s award based on their Salary. In these cases UC is also essentially decicting £4.35 from eaxh £250 of the claimants salary by conaidering it capital and at the same time considerring it as income and reducing the claimants award based on that salary income.. 

So UC is considering the claimants salary income as BOTH income and capital at the same time. It can not be both at the same time anyway.

6.0 Some claimants may even be denied a UC award altogether if the system generates a incorrect figure of over 16k. Which without including the claimants income, the claimant could be well below the 16k threshold. 

6.1 In the cases where the system incorrectly produces a money savings and investments (Capital) figure of over 6k (when it should be under 6k without the income included) UC is also essemtially removing £4.35 off every £250 from the claimants other income such as Child DLA payments and any other benefits as the system is not separating the income (earning/benefits) from the capital when a claimant makes a money savings and investments declaration.

6.2 In the rare cases that claimants are aware of the above, they can ask for a DM and a Mandatory reconsideration to remove their income (earnings/benefits) from their capital to get their correct entitlement.

However, this is a highly difficult, long winded, complex, time consuming process for the claimant and UC and takes a number of weeks to process of which there is no time scale. 

The claimants UC Payment is put on hold for a number of weeks while this is looked into. This is highly unreasonable and not acceptable. 

6.3 OUTCOME - WHAT RESOLUTION WE WANT

6.4 Add a box for Cost of Living Payments 

So if a claimant still has them they can add them to the box. As they are indefinitely disregarded as capital Rule H1766 & H1767. 

6.5 Add boxes to the system for a claimant to add their income (benefits/earnings) and the date it was received in that AP. 

Then the system (like it does for Welfare Support Payments etc) will seperate the claimants income from their capital, ensuring the correct figure is calculated and the claimant receives their correct entitlement

Grumpy_chap

There does not seem to be an actual request for information in that draft FoI request.

blackstar

Grumpy_chap said:

There does not seem to be an actual request for information in that draft FoI request.

That draft is what I am using for my MP m, the FOI request will be a very short question. Similar to what I think ned suggested. We are waiting for @yamo to give his thoughts on that and hopefully my complaint to my MP.

Newcad

NedS said:

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.

........The trick is to write a loaded question. 

Actually, you shouldn't ask any question at all. (That's part of the art of writing FoI's).

FoI's are about requesting information that is held, they are not for asking questions.
An organisation when asked has to (should) provide information that they already hold, they have no obligation to create new information to answer a question.

If your FoI asks a question then the DWP can, and often do, refuse to answer.

So for the above rather than asking a question you would request:
'information and/or guidance that the DWP hold which details or instructs how a Decision Maker should calculate capital for UC purposes, and how the DM should ensure and verify that income has not been included.'

As you say there is an art to writing good FoI's, especially to the DWP who are masters at twisting your request and at giving you what you didn't ask for instead of what you did ask for, or refusing to give the information for spurious reasons such as they don't think you have used your real name, or ..... etc., etc.
(I've come across most of their evasive tricks when making FoI's myself, but got to be pretty good at it, 49 sucessfull out of 53 FoI requests made to the DWP, some of them did take quite a bit of pushing though).

If you want to get into making FoI's then 'WhatDoTheyKnow', part of "mySociety", is a good place to start.
There is lots of advice there and it's easy to make your request and keep track of it.
Start with: https://www.mysociety.org/2014/08/15/how-to-make-a-freedom-of-information-request-with-whatdotheyknow/?utm_source=whatdotheyknow.com&utm_medium=link
And then: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about where you can actually make your request(s).

You might also want to take a look at some of the successful and the refused FoI's to the DWP there, it will give you an idea of what works and what doesn't (the DWP give their reasons for refusal).
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/dwp

Grumpy_chap

Newcad said:

Actually, you shouldn't ask any question at all. (That's part of the art of writing FoI's).

FoI's are about requesting information that is held, they are not for asking questions.
An organisation when asked has to (should) provide information that they already hold, they have no obligation to create new information to answer a question.

Indeed,
I have worked for businesses that sometimes receive "FoI requests", though the business activities fall outside the remit of FoI.  Regardless, the companies will usually try their best to provide a response if they can - it is seen as good customer service / PR. 
When the request is clear and focused, a quality response can be provided.
When the request is rambling and blurred, the response is limited to some standard, largely meaningless generic answer.