Reverification of universal credit awards

The background

Early in the pandemic, around March 2020, the DWP adjusted the usual evidence requirements for UC claims to speed up processing times in the face of a surge in claims and in light of job centres closing under public health restrictions. These ‘easements’, which were not put on any statutory footing but were introduced under a policy termed ‘Trust and Protect’, included replacing face-to-face checks with telephone calls as part of identity verification. The DWP states that, at the time, claimants were told over the phone that they would need to provide further evidence in the future.

The retrospective checking of claims accepted under ‘Trust and Protect’ commenced in early 2021, with the DWP initially reviewing UC awards that were still in payment by January 2021. This stage of the exercise concluded around September 2021, after around 900,000 awards had been revisited, and around 11 per cent of them had been found to have had, according to the DWP, ‘something wrong’ with them.

The Public Accounts Committee has called on the DWP to carry out a further review of 433,000 awards which were still in payment in January 20211 and the DWP has since confirmed that it is planning to carry out a further ‘targeted review of UC claims’ to ‘systematically review stock UC cases to uncover fraud and error’.2

What did the retrospective checks involve?

As part of the checks, claimants were asked to provide various pieces of evidence in relation to their identity (passport, driving licence, photographs of themselves holding ID documents) and/or housing costs (tenancy/rent agreements, council tax bills, utility bills), as well as, in some cases, evidence in relation to dependent children who were part of their claim.

The requests were made via UC journals, in some cases following a phone call, and the DWP states that at least three attempts to contact claimants were made before any further action was taken. Claimants were given 14 days to provide the requested evidence and, if it was not provided by the deadline, the DWP’s policy was to suspend further payments of UC. If, after a further month following suspension, identity evidence had still not been provided, ‘closure or termination’ followed.3 The DWP states: ‘in other words claimants will have a minimum of six weeks in which to supply the evidence that would ensure that their award continues’.

Legal framework

Requests for evidence and suspension and termination

The DWP has a power to request evidence and information from any person currently entitled to UC to check whether her/his UC award is correct or whether it should be revised or superseded. The DWP also has a power to request evidence and information in connection with a claim.4

If the DWP intends to terminate a UC award due to a failure by a current claimant to provide requested evidence, the legislation requires the DWP to notify the claimant of exactly what evidence is needed and that s/he has a minimum of 14 days to provide it. The DWP also must let claimants know they can request more time to provide the evidence, if needed.5 If the evidence is not provided by the deadline, the DWP can suspend future UC payments. It is also possible for DWP to suspend UC payments at the same time as the evidence request is made.6

If the claimant has not provided the requested evidence one month after the suspension, nor asked for an extension or explained that s/he can’t get the evidence, the DWP can terminate the award of UC. Unless entitlement ceases on an earlier date for some reason other than the claimant’s failure to provide the requested evidence, her/his UC can only be terminated from the date of suspension and no earlier.7 If awards are terminated under this process, no overpayment will arise.

Revisions of entitlement decisions

However, in reverification cases seen by CPAG, an overpayment of UC has been generated. An overpayment indicates that the DWP has revised an earlier entitlement decision – ie, the decision maker has concluded that entitlement ceased on an earlier date for some reason other than the claimant’s failure to provide the requested evidence, whether in respect of just the housing costs element or, in ID cases, the entire award. In the latter cases, the claimant’s UC account will have been ‘closed’ and there will be an overpayment of all benefit s/he has received during the award.

The DWP can only revise a decision to award UC more than a month after the original decision if it was an ‘official error’ or if the decision was made in ignorance of, or based on a mistake about, a primary fact.8 Once an award is in place, the burden of proof is on the DWP to demonstrate that proper grounds for revision exist if it wants to retrospectively remove entitlement.

Challenging decisions

A decision to revise an entitlement decision is an appealable decision, and the first step for claimants who wish to challenge a decision is to request a mandatory reconsideration. When submitting a mandatory reconsideration request in these circumstances, it is worth noting the following.

• Some claimants whose awards have ended because of a decision made following the reverification exercise might still be eligible for UC. Anyone in this position should make a new claim as soon as possible and request a mandatory reconsideration via her/his new journal.
• Prior to reclaiming, it is advisable to expand all existing journal entries and ‘print PDF’ or take screenshots, as access to these messages will be lost when the new claim starts.
• For those without a new claim and whose journals have been ‘frozen’, mandatory reconsiderations can also be requested via the UC helpline or by sending a CRM1 to FREEPOST Universal Credit, Department for Work and Pensions.
• It is important for claimants to provide the requested evidence as part of the mandatory reconsideration application, if they have the evidence but it has still not been provided to the DWP.
• In many of these cases, there will be ‘good reason’ for the DWP to accept mandatory reconsiderations made outside the one-month time limit if made within 13 months, and claimants should include reasons for this in their application.

If the decision is upheld on mandatory reconsideration, in many cases it will be worth pursuing an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. CPAG may be able to provide assistance with appeals on this topic, and you are welcome to get in touch by emailing [email protected].

CPAG is also interested to hear about claimants’ and advisers’ experiences of the reverification exercise, even if issues are resolved on mandatory reconsideration, and these can be recorded via the Early Warning System (cpag.org.uk/early-warning-system; for advisers in Scotland, cpag.org.uk/scotland/ews).