UC Claim closed without notification as I hadn’t accepted commitments?

SpikeyKitten

HillStreetBlues said:

SpikeyKitten said:

What are my options, if any, regarding levels of appeal?

Depends, did you agree a claimant commitment when you first migrated? or was this the first one? Your journal will tell you if you have accepted one in the past.

According to my journal 'Accept your commitments completed'. Which was triggered on the same day after my gateway interview with my advisor. The initial meeting when I first transitioned, as opposed to the first follow-up which I recently attended.

So are these 'accepting commitments' things triggered after each interview perhaps? Would make sense with the timings. Are you supposed to sign into your account immediately after to agree or you get closed down? If that's the case it's a bit harsh without warnings, or even explaining that that was what you had to do.

HillStreetBlues

SpikeyKitten said:

HillStreetBlues said:

SpikeyKitten said:

What are my options, if any, regarding levels of appeal?

Depends, did you agree a claimant commitment when you first migrated? or was this the first one? Your journal will tell you if you have accepted one in the past.

According to my journal 'Accept your commitments completed'. Which was triggered on the same day after my gateway interview with my advisor. The initial meeting when I first transitioned, as opposed to the first follow-up which I recently attended.

So are these 'accepting commitments' things triggered after each interview perhaps? Would make sense with the timings. Are you supposed to sign into your account immediately after to agree or you get closed down? If that's the case it's a bit harsh without warnings, or even explaining that that was what you had to do.

As you accepted the claimant commitment, then not accepting a further one doesn't end UC and they have made a mistake.
With your mandatory reconsideration you should quote Case Law CUC/1792/2020
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624313f4e90e075f07426e2f/CUC_1792_2020_UA_2020_001580.pdf

“15 … there is no legal basis to consider ending the award of UC for failing
to accept the revised claimant commitment since the previous claimant
commitment already in place still applies. Revised requirements can be set
outside of the claimant commitment if it is reasonable to do so by requiring
participation in an interview to set the new requirements. The
requirements to participate in an interview to review commitments during
an award would be under the provisions of section 23 of the WRA and
could only ever result in a sanctionable failure if the claimant failed to
comply with the interview requirement for no good reason

Thus, the DWP could only end an award of UC if one of the various UC
conditions of entitlement was no longer met – and in a case such as the present one,
where claimant commitments were due to be reviewed, the Appellant’s partner had
already accepted a claimant commitment that was in place to meet the requirements
of section 4(1)(e) of the WRA 2012.

SpikeyKitten

HillStreetBlues said:

SpikeyKitten said:

HillStreetBlues said:

SpikeyKitten said:

What are my options, if any, regarding levels of appeal?

Depends, did you agree a claimant commitment when you first migrated? or was this the first one? Your journal will tell you if you have accepted one in the past.

According to my journal 'Accept your commitments completed'. Which was triggered on the same day after my gateway interview with my advisor. The initial meeting when I first transitioned, as opposed to the first follow-up which I recently attended.

So are these 'accepting commitments' things triggered after each interview perhaps? Would make sense with the timings. Are you supposed to sign into your account immediately after to agree or you get closed down? If that's the case it's a bit harsh without warnings, or even explaining that that was what you had to do.

As you accepted the claimant commitment, then not accepting a further one doesn't end UC and they have made a mistake.
With your mandatory reconsideration you should quote Case Law CUC/1792/2020
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624313f4e90e075f07426e2f/CUC_1792_2020_UA_2020_001580.pdf

“15 … there is no legal basis to consider ending the award of UC for failing
to accept the revised claimant commitment since the previous claimant
commitment already in place still applies. Revised requirements can be set
outside of the claimant commitment if it is reasonable to do so by requiring
participation in an interview to set the new requirements. The
requirements to participate in an interview to review commitments during
an award would be under the provisions of section 23 of the WRA and
could only ever result in a sanctionable failure if the claimant failed to
comply with the interview requirement for no good reason

Thus, the DWP could only end an award of UC if one of the various UC
conditions of entitlement was no longer met – and in a case such as the present one,
where claimant commitments were due to be reviewed, the Appellant’s partner had
already accepted a claimant commitment that was in place to meet the requirements
of section 4(1)(e) of the WRA 2012.

Thank you so much.

Although I've already submitted my Mandatory Reconsideration. The lady on the phone did it and just added 'didn't get notification' as the reason. I didn't know then what was happening so just went with it. Hopefully I'll get a chance to argue my case.

HillStreetBlues

I would contact them saying you want to change the reason for the MR as by law it was wrongly closed and add the case law details.
A decision Marker might realise it was an error, but just going on your reason they might just reject it without looking at it deeply.

Newcad

Your Claimant Comittment C is usually 'updated' after each Jobcentre meeting, whether anything has changed or not.

(Mine is after every 3-monthly WFI that I attend), 

In fact it isn't usually the wording of the main CC itself that changes, rather it's you 'Work Plan' which changes, however the Work Plan does form an integral part of your CC.

You then have 7 days to accept the revised commitments on you UC account.
It shows as a 'To Do' on your account homepage. Once you have completed the To Do then you get that 'accept commitments completed' message on your journal.

We are all supposed to check out UC accounts regularly for To Do's and Journal messages, even when we don't have to jobseek.

It does seem a bit harsh if you have just missed seeing the To Do followingm your first interview, but it's a computerised system that just automatically closes the claim if the CC isn't accepted.
Hopefully when a Decision Maker gets your MR they will show a bit more compasion than the computer.

TheShape

Newcad said:

Your Claimant Comittment C is usually 'updated' after each Jobcentre meeting, whether anything has changed or not.

(Mine is after every 3-monthly WFI that I attend), 

In fact it isn't usually the wording of the main CC itself that changes, rather it's you 'Work Plan' which changes, however the Work Plan does form an integral part of your CC.

You then have 7 days to accept the revised commitments on you UC account.
It shows as a 'To Do' on your account homepage. Once you have completed the To Do then you get that 'accept commitments completed' message on your journal.

We are all supposed to check out UC accounts regularly for To Do's and Journal messages, even when we don't have to jobseek.

It does seem a bit harsh if you have just missed seeing the To Do followingm your first interview, but it's a computerised system that just automatically closes the claim if the CC isn't accepted.
Hopefully when a Decision Maker gets your MR they will show a bit more compasion than the computer.

A change in the Work Plan does not create a new set of Commitments to Accept.

The Work Plan is split from the Commitments to avoid every change to the Work Plan creating a need to accept new Commitments.

Commitments should normally only change/be changed following a change in circumstances.

Claim closure isn't automated if Commitments are not accepted, it requires manual input.

All that said, if you don't accept a Commitment in the 7-days, the claim is very likely to be closed.  The earlier suggestion that a sanction may result is not the case.  Failure to accept a Commitment is not sanctionable and will instead likely lead to claim closure.

HillStreetBlues

TheShape said:

All that said, if you don't accept a Commitment in the 7-days, the claim is very likely to be closed.  The earlier suggestion that a sanction may result is not the case.  Failure to accept a Commitment is not sanctionable and will instead likely lead to claim closure.

It shouldn't be closed, as the old CC is in force until the new one is accepted, the DWP told the Tribunal that is the case and the Tribunal accepted it.
If you read the Case law you will see it's  the DWP was in agreement of the appeal as they accepted they had made an error in closing a claim where that person didn't accept a new CC.
If the new CC states the need to do something and you don't accept the CC so don't do what's required, then a sanction can be put in place for what you haven't done not the closing of the claim.

TheShape

HillStreetBlues said:

TheShape said:

All that said, if you don't accept a Commitment in the 7-days, the claim is very likely to be closed.  The earlier suggestion that a sanction may result is not the case.  Failure to accept a Commitment is not sanctionable and will instead likely lead to claim closure.

It shouldn't be closed, as the old CC is in force until the new one is accepted, the DWP told the Tribunal that is the case and the Tribunal accepted it.

Correct, the old CC is in force until the new one is accepted.

If you read the Case law you will see it's  the DWP was in agreement of the appeal as they accepted they had made an error in closing a claim where that person didn't accept a new CC.

I'm not sure that I agree that was the interpretation of the tribunal ruling that you posted BUT, the reality is that failure to accept a CC after 7-days will (almost certainly) lead to claim closure.  I would not recommend that anyone leave a CC unaccepted for more tthan 7 days unless they have explicitly requested a second opinion as claim closure will alomost certainly result.

If the new CC states the need to do something and you don't accept the CC so don't do what's required, then a sanction can be put in place for what you haven't done not the closing of the claim.

If you do not do something on the CC in place/accepted at the time, this could result in a referral to a decision maker and a posible sanction.  Not accepting a CC is not a sanctionable failure as a failure to accept a CC is dealt with by considering claim closure.

My responses in bold.

8dayweek

HillStreetBlues said:

TheShape said:

All that said, if you don't accept a Commitment in the 7-days, the claim is very likely to be closed.  The earlier suggestion that a sanction may result is not the case.  Failure to accept a Commitment is not sanctionable and will instead likely lead to claim closure.

It shouldn't be closed, as the old CC is in force until the new one is accepted, the DWP told the Tribunal that is the case and the Tribunal accepted it.
If you read the Case law you will see it's  the DWP was in agreement of the appeal as they accepted they had made an error in closing a claim where that person didn't accept a new CC.
If the new CC states the need to do something and you don't accept the CC so don't do what's required, then a sanction can be put in place for what you haven't done not the closing of the claim.

This is really interesting. Can you link to the tribunal case? 

My understanding is failure to accept a Commitments is not a sanctionable “offence” however it is a basic condition of entitlement to have accepted a Commitments (unless that requirement is waived). 

**Ignore me - I see you already linked to it - I was having a moment! I think that particular case is in relation to during Covid when all Commitments were automatically switched off (but interesting all the same!)**

HillStreetBlues

TheShape said:

I'm not sure that I agree that was the interpretation of the tribunal ruling.

When you are sure it would be helpful to share your viewpoint,  as if someone disagrees always better to find out why.

TheShape said:

HillStreetBlues said:

If the new CC states the need to do something and you don't accept the CC so don't do what's required, then a sanction can be put in place for what you haven't done not the closing of the claim.

If you do not do something on the CC in place/accepted at the time, this could result in a referral to a decision maker and a posible sanction.  Not accepting a CC is not a sanctionable failure as a failure to accept a CC is dealt with by considering claim closure.

Did you mean to echo my posts in your reply about not doing something on a CC could lead to a sanction?

††††††††††††