Musings on changing from UC to Pension Age benefits, and a question.

Newcad

"We also know that this is in fact how DWP do it in practice."

Except that the DWP don't always do it in practice.

The image from Sweet and Maxwell that you posted above notes itself that the DWP are inconsistent in their approach to these initial pension payments made after UC has ended.
ie. "There have been reports of the DWP ignoring such payments and reports to the contrary".

I'll think and check some more before firing off a MR letter.
(I'm sure there was a thread about the inconsistency of what the DWP were doing in practice somewhere on rightsnet).
I started my, then ESA, claim back in 2011 with a journey needed to the tibunal, so it might seem fittting to end it with another tribunal.

TBH though for the moment I'm going to be concentrating on getting my Council to get their fingers out to start paying Pension Age HB, and to sort out the C-of-C for Council Tax purposes.
Unfortunately as I'm now a deserving pensioner rather than a work-shy benefits scrounger I will now have to pay some rent, and some Council Tax once they sort it out.
(I've just got a new CT billing for April 2026-April 2027 through the door, it gives me full CTR with zero to pay because it's been calculated on the basis that I will still be getting UC and for some reason still at the April 2025 UC rates. It's probably been auto-generated and so I'll expect 3 or 4 corrected versions before they are done.)

NedS

As I explained earlier in this thread, the 'inconsistency' comes from the availability of data of CIS at the end of the UC AP.

There is no inconsistency in applying the rules as DWP see them. If the data is there on CIS for SP, then UC will see it and deduct it as per Reg 73(2A). The system cannot deduct what it cannot see or is not there.

The claimant / casual outside observer may interpret that as DWP not consistently applying the regulations, but it's not (a computer system can be nothing other than consistent in how it calculates an award). And the system cannot generate an overpayment, retrospectively, as the claim is closed at the end of the AP. If the claim were to remain open until the next payment calculation occurs, an overpayment would generate for the SP amount in respect of the period, once the data becomes available on CIS.

I guess technically, what should happen is that DWP should not allow the claim to close before checking that SP has been deducted in respect of the period of the AP for which the claimant was entitled to SP. If they realised after closing the claim, they could again technically reopen the claim, generate the overpayment, refer the overpayment to DWP debt management and close the claim - however this is simply too much work for most agents to be bothered with, and most aren't likely even aware that there is potentially and issue / overpayment.