ESA to UC

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Migration from ESA to UC.

MisGivins

I am my son's appointee and I made the application for UC as he is migrating from IR ESA - last week.  It wasn't clear on whose ID was to be checked --- he does not have 2 of the IDs listed - he has a passport no Self Assessment tax info etc - I do - so I called the helpline - they said to make a journal note and when a case worker picked it up they would let me know.  It is also insisting the applicant make the WORK COMMITMENT - which I know he does not need to do - coming from support group and having an appointee (as his appointee I am not expected to do this on his behalf). I put a note on this in the journal also.  I did this application a week ago - as yet I have not had a reply into journal. It also says "You will get a phone call in 2-3 days" (it's now about 5 working days since - and no call as yet). I have not had to deal with journals and checking emails for benefits like this before - it is giving me a proper headache.  

KxMx

The phone call message can be disregarded, I've had it on my account for over three years! 

As his appointee I believe you verify your ID which in turn verifies him.

Claims can be a bit chaotic at the beginning, but do settle down and basically run themselves eventually. Though you will be expected to check the Journal regularly for any new messages or items in the To Do list. 

Newcad

MisGivins said:

 It is also insisting the applicant make the WORK COMMITMENT - which I know he does not need to do - coming from support group 

Please note that it is not a "work commitment" at all.

It is a "Claimant Commitment" and everybody on UC has to have one.
(Those who need to look for work also have a 'Work Plan' in addition to their Claimant Commitment).

A claimant with LCWRA (the equivalent of ESA Support Group) has a Claimant Commitment that simply says that:-
They will look at their journal regularly and read any messages there, and that they will inform UC of any changes of circumstances.
For someone with LCWRA their Claimant Commitment contains nothing whatsoever  about work, or looking for work, at all.

It's just another bit of bureaucracy, but the claimant has to accept their Claimant Commitment or the claim cannot continue and will be closed

Spoonie_Turtle

The work commitment will be a Claimant commitment, which for someone migrating from the ESA support group will literally just be a commitment to inform them of any changes. 

However I can't remember if a claimant with an appointee has to agree to one anyway, or if it's waived due to not being able to deal with their claim themselves.  But regardless, once it's all up and running there won't be any requirements to find work or attend appointments or anything.

NedS

Spoonie_Turtle said:

However I can't remember if a claimant with an appointee has to agree to one anyway, or if it's waived due to not being able to deal with their claim themselves.  But regardless, once it's all up and running there won't be any requirements to find work or attend appointments or anything.

Every claim must have a claimant commitment accepted otherwise it cannot go into payment and will close.

The issue with an appointee claim is who accepts the commitment. I don't think the appointee is supposed to accept it on the claimant's behalf (I could be wrong). I think the appointee should assist the claimant to accept it. Often a member of staff will end up accepting the commitment on behalf of the vulnerable claimant (noting on the claim that they have done so) to avoid the claim being closed or allow the claim to go into payment.

HillStreetBlues

NedS said:

Every claim must have a claimant commitment accepted otherwise it cannot go into payment and will close.

The issue with an appointee claim is who accepts the commitment. I don't think the appointee is supposed to accept it on the claimant's behalf (I could be wrong). I think the appointee should assist the claimant to accept it. Often a member of staff will end up accepting the commitment on behalf of the vulnerable claimant (noting on the claim that they have done so) to avoid the claim being closed or allow the claim to go into payment.

EDIT just checked the UC Regs  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/part/2/crossheading/accepting-a-claimant-commitment

Claimant commitment – exceptions

16.  A person does not have to meet the basic condition to have accepted a claimant commitment if the Secretary of State considers that—

(a)the person cannot accept a claimant commitment because they lack the capacity to do so; or

(b)there are exceptional circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect the person to accept a claimant commitment.

Robbie64

NedS said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

However I can't remember if a claimant with an appointee has to agree to one anyway, or if it's waived due to not being able to deal with their claim themselves.  But regardless, once it's all up and running there won't be any requirements to find work or attend appointments or anything.

Every claim must have a claimant commitment accepted otherwise it cannot go into payment and will close.

The issue with an appointee claim is who accepts the commitment. I don't think the appointee is supposed to accept it on the claimant's behalf (I could be wrong). I think the appointee should assist the claimant to accept it. Often a member of staff will end up accepting the commitment on behalf of the vulnerable claimant (noting on the claim that they have done so) to avoid the claim being closed or allow the claim to go into payment.

BiB: not where there is an appointee. See ADM Chapter U3, U3021-U3023:

ADM Chapter U3: ESA claimant responsibilities - the claimant commitment

; "> Lacking capacity
U3021 A claimant does not have to meet the basic condition of accepting a claimant commitment where
they lack the capacity to do so1.
1 ESA Regs 13, reg 45 (1)(a)

U3022 In this context, “lack the capacity” primarily relates to those claimants with an appointee acting
on their behalf. However, a decision should be made based on the available evidence as to whether or not
a claimant lacks the capacity to accept a claimant commitment.

"> U3023 Where it is accepted that a claimant lacks capacity then the requirement to accept a claimant
commitment is lifted. An appointee is not required to accept a claimant commitment on the claimant’s
behalf and should not be asked to do so.

Blancmang25

Robbie64 said:

NedS said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

However I can't remember if a claimant with an appointee has to agree to one anyway, or if it's waived due to not being able to deal with their claim themselves.  But regardless, once it's all up and running there won't be any requirements to find work or attend appointments or anything.

Every claim must have a claimant commitment accepted otherwise it cannot go into payment and will close.

The issue with an appointee claim is who accepts the commitment. I don't think the appointee is supposed to accept it on the claimant's behalf (I could be wrong). I think the appointee should assist the claimant to accept it. Often a member of staff will end up accepting the commitment on behalf of the vulnerable claimant (noting on the claim that they have done so) to avoid the claim being closed or allow the claim to go into payment.

BiB: not where there is an appointee. See ADM Chapter U3, U3021-U3023:

ADM Chapter U3: ESA claimant responsibilities - the claimant commitment

; "> Lacking capacity
U3021 A claimant does not have to meet the basic condition of accepting a claimant commitment where
they lack the capacity to do so1.
1 ESA Regs 13, reg 45 (1)(a)

U3022 In this context, “lack the capacity” primarily relates to those claimants with an appointee acting
on their behalf. However, a decision should be made based on the available evidence as to whether or not
a claimant lacks the capacity to accept a claimant commitment.

"> U3023 Where it is accepted that a claimant lacks capacity then the requirement to accept a claimant
commitment is lifted. An appointee is not required to accept a claimant commitment on the claimant’s
behalf and should not be asked to do so.

When someone is an appointee, they take on the responsibilities for the person that lacks the capacity to manage their affairs.

Therefore the appointee would have to accept the commitment to notify the DWP of any changes, as per the government guidelines and no doubt somewhere there will be a regulation:
https://www.gov.uk/become-appointee-for-someone-claiming-benefits

HillStreetBlues

Blancmang25 said:

Robbie64 said:

NedS said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

However I can't remember if a claimant with an appointee has to agree to one anyway, or if it's waived due to not being able to deal with their claim themselves.  But regardless, once it's all up and running there won't be any requirements to find work or attend appointments or anything.

Every claim must have a claimant commitment accepted otherwise it cannot go into payment and will close.

The issue with an appointee claim is who accepts the commitment. I don't think the appointee is supposed to accept it on the claimant's behalf (I could be wrong). I think the appointee should assist the claimant to accept it. Often a member of staff will end up accepting the commitment on behalf of the vulnerable claimant (noting on the claim that they have done so) to avoid the claim being closed or allow the claim to go into payment.

BiB: not where there is an appointee. See ADM Chapter U3, U3021-U3023:

ADM Chapter U3: ESA claimant responsibilities - the claimant commitment

; "> Lacking capacity
U3021 A claimant does not have to meet the basic condition of accepting a claimant commitment where
they lack the capacity to do so1.
1 ESA Regs 13, reg 45 (1)(a)

U3022 In this context, “lack the capacity” primarily relates to those claimants with an appointee acting
on their behalf. However, a decision should be made based on the available evidence as to whether or not
a claimant lacks the capacity to accept a claimant commitment.

"> U3023 Where it is accepted that a claimant lacks capacity then the requirement to accept a claimant
commitment is lifted. An appointee is not required to accept a claimant commitment on the claimant’s
behalf and should not be asked to do so.

When someone is an appointee, they take on the responsibilities for the person that lacks the capacity to manage their affairs.

Therefore the appointee would have to accept the commitment to notify the DWP of any changes, as per the government guidelines and no doubt somewhere there will be a regulation:
https://www.gov.uk/become-appointee-for-someone-claiming-benefits

The appointee accepts responsibilities by signing the BF56 form,  not via the claimant commitment.

NedS

Robbie64 said:

NedS said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

However I can't remember if a claimant with an appointee has to agree to one anyway, or if it's waived due to not being able to deal with their claim themselves.  But regardless, once it's all up and running there won't be any requirements to find work or attend appointments or anything.

Every claim must have a claimant commitment accepted otherwise it cannot go into payment and will close.

The issue with an appointee claim is who accepts the commitment. I don't think the appointee is supposed to accept it on the claimant's behalf (I could be wrong). I think the appointee should assist the claimant to accept it. Often a member of staff will end up accepting the commitment on behalf of the vulnerable claimant (noting on the claim that they have done so) to avoid the claim being closed or allow the claim to go into payment.

BiB: not where there is an appointee. See ADM Chapter U3, U3021-U3023:

ADM Chapter U3: ESA claimant responsibilities - the claimant commitment

; "> Lacking capacity
U3021 A claimant does not have to meet the basic condition of accepting a claimant commitment where
they lack the capacity to do so1.
1 ESA Regs 13, reg 45 (1)(a)

U3022 In this context, “lack the capacity” primarily relates to those claimants with an appointee acting
on their behalf. However, a decision should be made based on the available evidence as to whether or not
a claimant lacks the capacity to accept a claimant commitment.

"> U3023 Where it is accepted that a claimant lacks capacity then the requirement to accept a claimant
commitment is lifted. An appointee is not required to accept a claimant commitment on the claimant’s
behalf and should not be asked to do so.

Thank you for that.

My point was that the system simply will not put the claim into payment where no claimant commitment has been accepted, and will create a task for an agent to consider closing the claim. At that point, it should prompt the agent to take the appropriate course of action, but the commitment must be accepted on the UC system for any payment to be released, regardless of what the guidance/regs may say. It's simply a computer says no thing - there is no way for the UC award to be calculated or payment made until the commitment is accepted on the system.