Incorrect UC review

Spoonie_Turtle

Thank you Ned.  Even if I don't use it in the MR, for my own sanity at this point I want to see the calculations because I genuinely can't work out how they've got it so wrong.  My only guess might be if they've used end-of-month totals from the statements instead of the correct dates, but I don't have it in me to go looking into that based on nothing but a guess.

Muttleythefrog

Agree with Ned's advice in last two comments. SoR forces the hand to hopefully provide calculations making the MR easier... but also your own calcs and the assessment periods in question may indicate what it is they are getting wrong (failing to disregard a particular item type for example).

(Now I know why I justified to myself not challenging the ridiculous hefty overpayment of my housing costs currently being received (maintenance fees)... I could spent my battle with stage 4 cancer trying to do myself out of free money...not only did they fail to subtract the buildings insurance but have considered the quarterly charge as a monthly one! So around six times the housing costs I should get. The knowledge and capability of staff employed seems to be erm... often defective)

I don't know how long I've had my signature on here... a quote of a valued contributor of era gone by.. but probably a good decade...lol.. it remains relevant.

NedS

I would start drafting your MR arguments now. I would start by presenting your own calculations based on the evidence you have already provided, showing what your capital balance should be on each AP end date together with your workings and reasoning (quoting any ADM as relevant - I would quote ADM references rather than UC Regs as a DM should absolutely be familiar with the ADM but not all will go read the UC Regs*).

Then, once you have sight of their workings in the WSOR, you can highlight where they have gone wrong or what they have failed to do.

Make the DM's job as easy as possible and hopefully they will be able to make the right decision. If not, then you have the hard work for your appeal submission already written (if needed).

The law is really simple:

• Capital as calculated on the last day of the AP
• CoL payments are fully disregarded
• Income received in the AP is not capital.

Apply those three rules and you're good to go.

* If it goes as far as an appeal, then you can quote UC Regs too as tribunal magistrates should be familiar with the UC Regs.

TimeLord1

I'm unsure what would even trigger a review, or is it just the case that this new team randomly chooses who to review whenever they feel like it? Or is there more of a system in place to work through millions of cases they simply suspect they might have been overpaid? And how many cases is one auditor looking into at one time? It has to be several at a time, and surely they must make errors in judgment. Or are they hopeful nobody will appeal against their calculations?

huckster

No, I believe the review team are gradually working through most UC claims. With different teams looking at different aspects.

A job advert was placed this week for 150 new review staff to particularly review self employment income and expenses reporting.

At some point I would think that DWP will automate using AI a lot of the data gathering, so the review team checks will become more targeted. E.g. Banks sharing more data, local Government sharing more data etc. 

Spoonie_Turtle

While I wait for the decision letter and draft the MR etc., if I were to report a change in savings to actually reflect current totals today, to ensure they don't make a deduction from this AP onwards, would that appear (incorrectly) to be an admission of having had capital over 6k?

Edit: I've just had a click through and they've set my 'total money, savings and investments' as over £6k from 9th March, so they are going to be making deductions which means an MR every month until this is sorted, if I don't report a change.

TimeLord1

I think there needs to be something more open that an individual can work with them. Let's face it, they know more than enough about the situations people claiming are in. But to employ more civil servants has to come with cuts to another service, such as assessing people virtually, that is nonexistent today. And I also wonder how many of the review staff are also currently claiming some form of benefits themselves ? 

Did they workout and show you the breakdown of how this occurred? Because just claiming you was above 6k is totally wrong they have to submit a reasonable answer to find fault not income added to capital or delay in outgoings because of banking apps going down. 

TimeLord1

Incidentally that's also worth noting in these audits if a bank is unavailable or inaccessible how is that the customer's issue.

HillStreetBlues

I haven't updated my capital since being on UC  but reading others posts  is there a box where you can enter COL payments?  If so might be worth  breaking down the figures.

Spoonie_Turtle

TimeLord1 said:

Did they workout and show you the breakdown of how this occurred? Because just claiming you was above 6k is totally wrong they have to submit a reasonable answer to find fault not income added to capital …

Despite me asking, no.  It's looking like I need to wait for the decision then request the statement of reasons (although if I've misunderstood, please someone correct me).