Universal Credit Query

wwfwilla

I'll take a moment to bring you up to speed.

My brother had been claiming UC from August 2024. We came to the realisation in October 2025 that he had overseas shares. I got my mum to find the most recent annual statement. This was dated 27 May 2025 (showing the previous 12 months), so I reported a change in circumstances and reported the figure on his statement £60k as of the statement end date of 27 May 2025. His UC was frozen at this point.

My mum and brother then attended a meeting to discuss this where we fully realised he'd have to pay back his UC. They requested statements for everything back to when he started his claim in August 2024. So we sent in another statement for his shares which we obtained dated from 01 Jan - 31 Dec 2024. This meant they'd had statements covering all his claim back to August 2024 (when he had about £45k in shares).

Six days ago (after 7 weeks of waiting) we got a letter from DWP with the calculation of what he owes back. They are asking for !00% of the money originally paid. After checking his payments section on his UC account they've only amended the periods from 5th May 2025-4th October 2025.

They've got statements for his shares all the way back to 1 Jan 2024 (which DWP asked for) showing an opening of £45k as the balance. They also know what UC payments he's had since Aug 2024.
My brain is telling me that because I reported the share balance as of 27 May 2025 that maybe they've only gone back to then.
But a meeting was had to get it all out in the open and all the evidence was sent in (they specifically requested evidence to go back to at least Aug 2024 so they could look at all his payments.)

Can anyone help me make sense of it please? Do we accept what they've said in the letter as what he owes and that's the end of the matter as, once again, they've had all the evidence and have only come asking for payments issued from 5 May 2025 to be returned.

N.B. Through the meeting and evidence submitted we've already pointed out to DWP that he had shares right from the start. There's no further information we can offer as they have it all.

Thanks for your help.

rarees1

I'm not sure what you meant when you mistyped "!00% of the money originally paid". I'm guessing 100%, so….

I understand your confusion. As you know, you are not entitled to UC if you have capital over £16k. I would have expected then to go right back to the start of the claim. Unfortunately, UC seem to make rather a lot of mistakes and now they can demand any overpayment be returned even when it's their error.

I suggest you ask how the DWP came to the decision to go back to May 2025 just in case there is something you are not aware of.

It's up to UC to actually calculate the amount of overpayment. They then inform Debt Management Unit to arrange repayment. Debt Management are not able to tell you if the amount of debt calculated is correct.

NedS

He will need to repay the full amount as he was never entitled to UC. It would appear that UC have made a mistake. You should point this out to them and get this corrected, as overpayments are always recoverable (even if it is UC's mistake), so he will have to repay it at some point when they realise.

Contact UC and explain their mistake to them, and get the full amount issued as an overpayment and the claim closed.

Grumpy_chap

This thread seems to be a follow on from this previous thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642005/universal-credit-finances-interview/p1

(they might be better merged?)

From what I understand reading the threads:

• brother began claiming UC in August 2024
• the claim omitted some shares (which have been >£16k value throughout the full claim period)
• UC have now been informed about the shares
• UC have re-calculated the previous awards, all to zero (because of the >£16k capital in the shares)
• UC now require repayment of all money paid out right from the start of the claim.

That seems to be correct and how it should be.

The exception would be if any of the UC award comprised non-means-tested elements (usually health related).

A repayment plan may be possible, or some of the (now £60k) shares could be sold to repay the UC.

Spoonie_Turtle

The exception would be if any of the UC award comprised non-means-tested elements (usually health related).

That doesn't exist, UC is means-tested full stop. Anything non-means-tested would be an entirely separate benefit.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81896606#Comment_81896606

Thanks - sorry if I mis-phrased.

I was trying to get across that if any of the benefits money received was of a type that is not means-tested, then the discovery of the shares would not affect those non-means-tested elements of the benefits that have been received. Obviously, we don't know whether there are any such elements in this case.

Spoonie_Turtle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81896614#Comment_81896614

I think I understand but I'm not sure, as you're mixing up the idea of elements vs actual benefits. Universal Credit - all of it, every element, every component, the entire award - is means-tested.

Are you perhaps thinking of passported help due to receiving UC? If so that would almost certainly have to be paid back as well, since this person was not entitled to UC at all and thus not entitled to any passported support in the first place.

If someone receives (other) financial support that is not means-tested nor predicated upon receipt of UC, from a different benefit, then it is entirely separate from UC and unrelated.

Grumpy_chap

I only used the word "elements" with its every-day meaning and could just as easily have used "parts", "bits", "some", "components" or whatever.

All I was trying to alert the OP to was the Brother had received some benefits and any mean-tested benefits received will need to be repaid as the Brother had >£16k through the full period of the claim. The OP also mentioned that the Brother had some health issues. All I was trying to do was make the point that if any of the benefits received were not means-tested (award linked to the health issues), then these "elements" would not be repayable.

Sorry if I caused confusion by use of the phrase "elements" if that has some special and particular meaning in the benefits context of which I was unaware. I was only using the phraseology in the every-day meaning.

wwfwilla

Thanks for the responses.

I have used the journal to state that evidence/statements were provided going back to August 2024, and have therefore asked that they are happy that the figure given is the correct and final figure owing for the Aug 24 - Nov 25 period.