UC carers element tribunal won but

Yamor

Just to clarify about the 13-month rule:

Universal Credit (and the wider social security system) is a decision-based system. When a decision is made, it has effect until it is either "revised" or "superseded", regardless of the rights or wrongs of the decision.
"Revision" is where the original decision was wrong, and is changed retrospectively.
"Supersession" is where the original decision was correct at the time (or can't be changed any more), but there has been a change, and needs to be changed from a later date.

And to clarify, a "mandatory reconsideration" is an example of a request for a "revision", and a report of a change of circumstances is effectively a request for a "supersession".

In your case, if you are looking to add the Carer Element from the start of your UC award, then you are looking to get that initial decision "revised".

If you are looking to add the Carer Element from a later date, then you are looking to get the initial decision "superseded".
(However, if a new superseding decision was made for any other reason since the date you want to add the Carer Element, then you could look to "revise" that later decision.)

Both revision and supersession have strict rules, and time limits, about when they can be carried out, and, for supersessions, when the new decision will have effect. (Revisions change the original decision retrospectively, so always have effect from the date the original decision had effect.)

Specifically as regards the Carer Element, there is a common scenario where the rules allow revision or supersession to be carried out even if you ask for it many years later. This is where you have been awarded Carer's Allowance, or if a member of your family (meaning a partner or child, but not your father) is the person you are caring, and they have been awarded DLA/PIP.

As this is not the case in your situation, you are left with the basic rules of revision and supersession, both of which have a basic one-month time limit, and an extended 13-month time limit where you had good reason for not making the request earlier.

6tw6et

That's very helpful because it's just not clear...even online.

I did read from another forum of somebody who tried the same thing as me and got this response


"regarding your late reporting request for Carer Element as this was received over 13 months of date of claim no decision is required as a decision cannot be revised after 13 months. There is no decision to be made and no appeal rights"

That means, there is no appeal , no MR , no tribunal?

Additionally, I did make a complaint to the DWP because the enhance review team advisor was very rude to me regarding me trying to backdate to this and it's not her job to interfere and I did not ask her to interfere..

I've made a complaint about her, and I'm not happy with the resolution even though they took her off my case so I've asked it to be looked at again by a senior manager as per the dwp complaint procedure.

What is annoying as well as I had an enhanced review and then a week later and another review,(got the call next week). but this one was for the four months of statements
 which I don't have any issue, providing...

but why couldn't they just do them both at the same time considering I had a bad experience within the last advisor and I did make a deal out of it because I'm not been spoken to like that. calls should be recorded for proof.

full story, I asked the case manager how can I potentially request a backdate
 and he said you have to go into change of circumstance because it currently says I am caring.. I have to press stop caring and then start caring again from the date I want to attempt to get it backdated from.

So I just went into that section to see, I clicked to stop caring and then when it went to the date I just clicked Cancel as unsure if i will try yet, didnt press coonfirm, just backed out.

There was nothing on my to-do list on my UC journal

Then exactly 7 days later, I get a standard review asking for four months of bank statements and ID and another thing on my to-do list was to complete the caring either continue caring or cancel the cancellation.

What the actual hell is going on there? Just because I went into that section and didn't confirm any changes, it's gonna give me another review again because it's really got on my nerves.


If anybody has any ideas?

huckster

That is the process on UC. To be able to report caring from a different date, you have to report stopped caring from x date and then report caring from the date you think it should be from.

Likely to muck up your claim and remove current caring. Might also produce large overpayment on the claim record.

I would advise against this action.

I don't think you are going to achieve backdated caring going back years by reporting change on claim. 

If you want to try, make a formal complaint and point to DWP knowing about caring going back to x date. And follow the complain process through to conclusion.

6tw6et

This is exactly why I'm looking at all of the details before I do anything.

But my question is... I didn't change the date. I literally looked into that section and then cancelled out without confirming anything.

And then I had this review come up 
 they wanted me to confirm have I stopped caring or not but

there hasn't been any changes made and I'm repeatedly asking them.
I will comply with the review ,not that I like people looking at my bank statements but what can you do in my situation?

There's nowhere else I can get money from because I'm a full-time carer... I want them to answer my questions I don't want to have conversations with them unless it's mandatory and it seems to me they have stupid AI processes going on the background.

I have escalated my complaint to level two.  Sick of them guys,ignoring legit questions...

 the fact that they give you an extra £200 a month to look after someone (comapred to unemployed) who is palliative but they give the same amount of money to someone who says they are caring but they don't have to be living with the person is ridiculous.

Bemmy2525

I care for someone who doesn't live with me, in fact I had to give up a well paid job to be a carer. Just because I'm not living with them does not negate the 50 hours of care I provide(factory work is easier in my opinion and better paid). DWP sends letters to the cared for to confirm that the caring is legitimate so I don't understand why it's ridiculous. Whether the care is palliative or not is irrelevant to the DWP, all that matters is that they require at least 35 hours a week of care, although some people may provide significantly more care than that.

If I wasn't providing care, the governments or social services etc would be doing it at significantly more expense which is what the Carer Element (and/or Carers Allowance) is used to compensate (still too low though)

6tw6et

I think you're missing my point. 

There are a lot of people who say they are caring for people when they are not. If you can just say you are caring for someone and that's it, and you don't even have to live with them, they start asking more questions to anybody on carers's element or carers allowance and it's a standard procedure, even the ones living with the person like me get questioned.

The reason is because it's possible if a person may not be telling the truth... so I'm not talking about your specific case it's just my experience... not everybody that's saying they are caring , is actually caring, especially people are not living with them... some people are just unemployed.

So it's not about taking my comment specific to your situation.... my point is some people on PIP are nowhere near as bad as someone being palliative and bedbound and blind et cetera/dementia. ITS 24/7 for some and 35h a week for others, there is a big difference. The government need to notice this.

my point is they should work out a different system... people with very severe caring needs shouldn't get the same amount of money as people if you are not that bad and that is my opinion.

To label everybody as 35 hours generically, is what I disagree with.
But yeah, I'm not going to be commenting on this thread any further I've just decided to leave it.
13 month rule to me seems like it wont work...
From years of experience I would say the carers in the UK are not given the correct recognition or the correct funds to do a job that literally cost thousands of pounds (sometimes per week )to the government if they had to do it.

Many healthcare professionals have said to me that the government in the end win because they don't have to carry the burden or the financial cost of caring for people yet they offer £200 a month where somebody could be leaving a £50,000 job to do it.... the system is what I disagree with.

Spoonie_Turtle

6tw6et said:

There are a lot of people who say they are caring for people when they are not. …

… my point is some people on PIP are nowhere near as bad as someone being palliative and bedbound and blind et cetera/dementia. ITS 24/7 for some and 35h a week for others, there is a big difference. The government need to notice this.

my point is they should work out a different system... people with very severe caring needs shouldn't get the same amount of money as people if you are not that bad and that is my opinion.

To label everybody as 35 hours generically, is what I disagree with.
…
From years of experience I would say the carers in the UK are not given the correct recognition or the correct funds to do a job that literally cost thousands of pounds (sometimes per week )to the government if they had to do it.

Many healthcare professionals have said to me that the government in the end win because they don't have to carry the burden or the financial cost of caring for people yet they offer £200 a month where somebody could be leaving a £50,000 job to do it.... the system is what I disagree with.

Right so you're looking at it wrong.  Don't be arguing for other already-underpaid/undervalued carers to get less or not be classed as carers or accuse them of lying(!!!), you should be arguing for 24/7 carers to be getting more. 
Don't misdirect your limited spare energy to be pointing fingers at other people struggling, that helps nobody.

6tw6et

I have a point of view and I will voice that point of view as I feel appropriate. Period

Nobody is accusing anybody of lying on this forum , but I have seen statistics of people saying they are caring when they are not. Facts, it happens. Then the legitmate people get asked questions.

Nobody is saying anybody should get paid less
It should be judged on the level of care. Eg.  24/7 care not same as 35h one size fits all.

THAT is my view , it will not change based on what somebody says on a forum.

eg
lets say 40h a week( some do more like me) but ok....£201 carers element.
 201 divide 160h (month) = £1.26 an hour. 


But as I said, I'm not commenting any further this is unproductive.
Everybody seems to be very sensitive to their own situation and that's what I am... I'm not here to change the system, but voice my own situation. 
End.

Spoonie_Turtle

6tw6et said:

Nobody is accusing anybody of lying on this forum , but I have seen statistics of people saying they are caring when they are not. Facts, it happens. Then the legitmate people get asked questions.

…

eg
lets say 40h a week( some do more like me) but ok....£201 carers element.
 201 divide 160h (month) = £1.26 an hour. 

I didn't intend to imply you were, I'm sorry if it came across that way.  I meant in general.  To direct your energy at the people making the system, not waste it resenting or doubting other people (general - i.e. your perception of other carers as a group) also struggling in the system.


[Just for info and not to get political but I'm leaving your calculation quoted as well, to highlight the level of recompense(!) carers get even at the minimal level of caring to qualify.  Readers can draw their own conclusions from the figures.]

6tw6et

Hey, its ok. Just a lot of pressure going on at the moment here, and has been for many years and I'll keep on top of it.. and sometimes you just get frustrated with the lack of help in general from the NHS and the lack of support you get from the government when you can't go to work... and the only thing you are doing is trying to keep somebody out of a care home which is not exactly cheap anyway.

So sometimes it feels like you're losing the battle, but you keep going because of the fact that, its your own family.

I just thinking many years of doing this role after having many years of being someone who went to work, and just enjoyed myself afterwards... I've had it a lot better than some others.

Just when you look at the situation from a financial point of view, I just don't understand how the government let this happen but yet spend money in other places where it's not even as important considering how much we are saving them.

But obviously, I see your point... it's the people making the rules that are the issue.