Judicial review pre-action template letters: universal credit and migration to universal credit

We have the following templates:

• JR151 DWP refuse to cancel a Migration Notice (MN) when the claimant, within 3 months and one day of MN, will be within 6 months of pension age (currently on working tax credit including the disabled worker element). 
• JR152 DWP refuse to cancel a Migration Notice (MN) when the claimant has a nil award of tax credits contrary to DWP guidance. Please tell [email protected] if your client received a nil award of tax credit after receipt of the MN as additional wording will be needed. 
• JR154 DWP refuse to cancel a Migration Notice when the claimant has a 19 year old in full time non advanced education, contrary to DWP guidance.

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Please also get in touch if you have a client who:

• has migrated to UC under managed migration and has asked, but has not been provided with a breakdown of how their transitional element has been calculated. You can use CPAG's tool to request a breakdown of the calculation if you have not already requested one.
• has received a managed migration notice and there are grounds for this to be cancelled (which are not covered by the above templates) but DWP have refused.

We have the following templates:

• JR30: UC refusal of 'run on after a death' in a new claim - benefit cap and refusal of carer element in line with carers allowance run-on - previous joint Income Support claim (note this assumes the claimant is male and therefore has fewer discrimination arguments than the other letters, you may wish to cut and paste some grounds from the ‘Elements: Housing costs element letters if your client is female)
• JR2: mixed age PC couple, death of older partner, new UC claim, no protection/run-on after a death, immediate bedroom tax
• JR3: ESA couple - death of lead ESA claimant, new UC claim, no protection/run-on after a death, immediate bedroom tax. This letter applies where a claimant on legacy benefits who was part of a couple previously exempt from the bedroom tax, suffers a bereavement which results in their having to make a new claim for UC, and is immediately affected by the bedroom tax. This is often the case where the client was a carer for the person who has died. You may also wish to check if their carers allowance has run on but the carer element has not been included in their UC. 

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

We have the following template:

• JR71: Delay in superseding an income support award to include SDP, such that a new UC award does not include the SDP transitional element

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Refusal of advance

We have the following templates:

• JR142: DWP refuse a UC new claim advance when a survivor of domestic abuse changes from a couple to single UC award and the perpetrator of the domestic abuse has taken the final couple UC payment
• JR107: DWP refuse a UC change of circumstances advance as the claimant did not apply for it in the assessment period in which they stopped work

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected].

Failing to offer advance

We have the following templates:

• JR15: Failure to offer an advance to a newly recognised refugee
• JR156: refugee required to produce BRP when not yet issued; unlawful application of HRT, and failure to offer a UC new claim advance

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected].

Amount of advance

We have the following templates:

• JR69: Amount of UC advance capped as 12 x 25% of standard allowance
  Note: this letter is only likely to apply to families exempt from the benefit cap, and it may also be possible to argue that DWP's approach is further mistaken as the maximum rate of recovery is 15% (any of the advance which is not recovered via offset under reg. 10 is then recovered via deduction and the 15% limit applies ). Please let us know when you contact us  if you would like to include this additional argument.

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

We have the following template:

• JR77: 9-month benefit cap grace period not applied when claimant has stopped working (and was in work for at least minimum wage for 12 months)

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

We have the following template:

• JR30: UC refusal of 'run on after a death' in a new claim - benefit cap and  refusal of carer element in line with carers allowance run-on - previous joint Income Support claim.

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

These letters can be used before or after a client has been sanctioned as a result of inappropriate UC conditionality. If they have not been sanctioned, references to sanctions will need to be removed from your letter.

Before using the letters below:

Your client should 'ask for a second opinion and ask for their claimant commitment to be reviewed' via their UC journal. The DWP stated in correspondence to CPAG (05.05.22):

"the procedure which applies when a claimant does not agree with work-related requirements imposed on them in their claimant commitment is to request a second opinion and ask for their claimant commitment to be reviewed. If the second opinion agrees that the requirements are unreasonable the claimant will be offered a new claimant commitment and asked to accept it. If the second opinion agrees that the original requirements are reasonable, the claimant can accept the commitment or refuse to accept it. In the latter case, the award would be terminated, and the claimant notified of that decision and their rights to a mandatory reconsideration and appeal."

Note: DWP Guidance 'Claimant commitment not accepted (V5)' suggests that "If the second opinion is requested within the cooling-off period, the cooling-off period ends." Though there is no obvious legal basis for this.

CPAG are interested to know if:

a) claimants are told they have the right to a second opinion, and

b) claimant commitments are changed following second opinions in practice.

Note: where a claimant has not accepted a revised claimant commitment (ie, not in respect of a new claim) the consequence of failure to accept is a sanction, as confirmed by the DWP's representative in FO v SSWP (UC) [2022] UKUT 56 (AAC) at para 14. The ADM limits this to where a claimant has not attended a commitments meeting, and does not include that the seeking of a second opinion will end the cooling-off period:

J1036... "Only if the claimant attends the interview as required but refuses or fails to accept the new commitments can the DM consider terminating the award of UC after a cooling off period."

CPAG are interested to know if:

c) claimants are advised that seeking a second opinion will end their cooling off period and that if the second opinion upholds the first opinion, if they do not accept the new commitments, their award will be terminated, and

d) whether seeking a second opinion within the ‘cooling-off period’ in practice ends the ‘cooling -off period’

Template letters

Note that there is increased conditionality for parents of 3-12 year olds from 30 October 2023 - however as at 17 November 2023 DWP guidance had not yet been amended and the below letters have not therefore been changed. Further changes for other claimants are also expected in the spring 2024 budget.

Face-to-face appointments

If your client is waiting for a Work Capability Assessment and being called into the Jobcentre in person every week and this is inappropriate due to disability, DWP also stated (05.05.22):

"I can confirm that claimants awaiting a work capability assessment should have their claimant commitment tailored to their individual needs including the frequency, length and method of interventions."

As above, ask for second opinion and let CPAG know how DWP respond. A part of this, request reasonable adjustments if it is inappropriate to require your client to attend JC+ in person due to their disability. You can use our template: Reasonable adjustments request example re face-to-face JC+ appointments. If DWP say no, please seek advice [email protected],

Administrative Earnings Threshold

The Administrative Earnings Threshold increased on 26/09/22 - ie, the amount a claimant has to earn such that they are not expected to look for additional or higher paid work. DWP newsletter Touchbase stated on 23/09/22:

"It is important to understand that most claimants affected by the AET rise will already be in work and some may already be working as much as they can, depending on their individual circumstances. Initial meetings with work coaches will be to discuss what is reasonable and may include work preparation, to support claimants in preparing to increase their earnings when they are able to. Claimants will be able to agree an individual claimant commitment which reflects their circumstances."

Please contact [email protected] if your client is already working as many hours as they can, yet is being required to look for more.

• JR22 Claimant is a carer (does not get CA, works part time and has a child - can be edited if does not apply)
• JR21 Claimant has baby aged under 1
• JR20 Claimant has baby aged 1
• JR38 Claimant has child aged 2
• JR16 Claimant has child aged 3 or 4
  Note that there is increased conditionality (from 25 to 30 hours) for parents of 3-12 year olds from 30/10/2023.
• JR26 Claimant has child aged 5 - 12
  Note that there is increased conditionality (from 25 to 30 hours) for parents of 3-12 year olds from 30/10/2023.
• JR25 Claimant has child aged 13 +
• JR39 Mental health (simple edits needed for physical health)

Accepting the claimant commitment

We have the following templates:

• JR58: DS1500 has been provided but claimant has been required to accept a claimant commitment
  JR119: UC claim closed due to failure to accept claimant commitment when has complex needs, given fewer than 7 days to accept, and called to 'meeting' rather than asked to accept actual commitment

See information about mandatory reconsideration in these circumstances.

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Telephone claims

We have the following template:

• JR134: claimant has disability and has asked that UC be administered by telephone / paper and this has been refused by DWP

Note: There is a new ‘Change from an online account to a phone claim’ to-do in the updated list of to-dos. JR134 will need amending to take account of this.

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Backdating

Please get in touch if you have a client who has been refused backdating as "Evidence to support the backdating request must be received within one calendar month of a claimant making their claim to Universal Credit.” [email protected]

Claiming in advance

We have the following templates:

• JR31: Refusal to accept a UC claim made in the month before the claimant's release from prison
• JR23: Refusal to accept a UC claim made in the month before a care leaver's 18th birthday

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Claim or award 'closed'

We have the following templates:

• JR43: UC claim closed due to failure to attend interview or failure to provide Identity or R2R evidence
  Please get in touch if you have a client in this position: [email protected]. See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR119: UC claim closed due to failure to accept claimant commitment when has complex needs, given fewer than 7 days to accept, and called to 'meeting' rather than asked to accept actual commitment
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR58: DS1500 has been provided but claimant has been required to accept a claimant commitment
  Takes account of new Regs from 15/02/22. See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR87: 2nd UC claim closed because appeal pending/ongoing in respect of previous award even though change of circumstances since 1st award
  With thanks to North East Suffolk Citizens Advice Bureau for raising the issue and identifying the relevant guidance. See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR129: UC claim closed as estranged 16/17 year old 'receiving education' or 'living with someone in place of a parent'
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR120: UC award "closed" and overpayment due to failure to provide ID evidence further to ID reverification when UC awarded initially during Covid easement
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR120(b): UC award "closed" and overpayment due to failure to provide ID evidence further to ID reverification when UC awarded initially during Covid easement - NO CURRENT UC ENTITLEMENT
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR138: UC award 'closed' and overpayment for non attendance at JC+ interviews. Thanks to Citizens Advice Epping Forest District for drafting and sharing this template. See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR88: Incorrectly required to meet HRT for UC – Destitution Domestic Violence concession
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR123: UC award "closed", MR delay, and overpayment due to failure to provide a selfie further to ID reverification when UC initially awarded during Covid easement

Please get in touch if you have a client whose UC award has been 'closed' following a request to re-verify their ID: [email protected] 

These letters can be used when a client's claim or award has been 'closed' and they include 'failure to advise of appeal rights'.

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Requesting mandatory reconsideration

A mandatory reconsideration request should also be made as 'closing' a claim or award is an appealable decision (see PP v SSWP (UC) [2020] UKUT 0109 (AAC) for confirmation. In this case the Secretary of State had further not advised of appeal rights, and mandatory reconsideration was not required to exercise the claimant's right of appeal).

Your client can also re-claim UC, but note before they do so, they should download any documents relevant to their mandatory reconsideration request / appeal and take screen shots of their UC journal, as they are likely to lose access to their original journal as soon as a new claim is made. 

New claims and changes of circumstances

We have the following templates:

• JR127: Incorrect application of HRT to Afghan refugee and consequent delay in determining UC claim (inc NINo issue)
• JR68: Failure to pay on a new claim while calculating a period of backdating for a previous award - UC
  This template has been adapted with the kind permission of Osbornes Law. For help sending the pre-action letter or in the event of a negative response from DWP, please contact Osbornes Law (Camden office) (osborneslaw.com/contact-us) to refer your client.
• JR104: Delay in deciding LCWRA - Inconclusive or no telephone WCA told "wait for a face-to-face assessment" (edits needed if no WCA carried out at all already)
• JR41: Failure to make enquiries of the DWP, Home Office or HMRC to establish HRT or to consider the claimant's oral evidence when no other evidence exists - UC
  Note: needs to have applied to EU settlement scheme if EU national / non EEA national with right to reside (R2R) dependent on an EEA national before 30/06/21 (unless has non EEA leave to remain under the Immigration Rules). Edits will be needed depending on whether you are arguing the claimant has their own R2R or is relying on that of an(other) EEA national.
• JR40: Delay in making an HRT decision (and consequent delay in UC)
• JR146: Delay in implementing a First-tier Tribunal decision. Thanks to Citizens Advice Epping Forest District for drafting and sharing this template.

Mandatory reconsiderations: refusal and delay

Note: where the need to seek revision before appeal applies (not HB - see JR145 below), there is a right of appeal against the decision to refuse to revise for official error (PH and SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA)(JSA) [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC)). In order to succeed in that appeal you need to show:

1. That your application for revision (ie the application they have refused) specifically mentioned official error; and
2. That the decision itself was made in consequence of official error.

However, where your client has not been advised of their appeal rights, or has been told that they do no have a right of appeal, or your client is homeless or destitute, you may also consider sending a pre-action letter. 

• JR149: MR delay and UC housing costs refused as fixed term AST has ended and tenant has remained on statutory periodic basis therefore no written agreement or fixed term
  Thanks to Girlington Advice Centre for bringing this issue to CPAG's attention.
• JR123: UC award "closed", MR delay, and overpayment due to failure to provide a selfie further to ID reverification when UC initially awarded during Covid easement
• JR81: Refusal to provide a UC mandatory reconsideration notice because: "there is no right to an MR because the challenge relates to a policy issue". This letter was drafted as "failure to apply Johnson", but can be used in a number of scenarios. Please seek assistance if needed 
• JR6: UC failure to process phone/journal/face2face MR request (failure to provide MR decision/delay)
• JR10: UC delay in providing UC MR decision (when MR was requested of HRT decision- but can be edited for any MR)
• B: Refusal to make a supersession decision or delay in providing a supersession decision

Note: When working out whether a delay is 'unreasonable' consider that "the average (median) waiting times for mandatory reconsiderations are 57 calendar days for PIP, 51 calendar days for universal credit, and 10 calendar days for employment and support allowance (ESA) work capability assessments." Tom Pursglove House of Commons written answer 31/10/22

We have the following templates to challenge the level of deductions from UC where your client is experiencing financial hardship.

• JR136: total deductions reduce UC payment to zero (ie, less than 1p) in an assessment period
• JR122: Refusal to reduce new claim advance deduction when total deductions (inc TC o/p) total 25%
• JR34: Refusal to reduce rent arrears deduction below 20%
  (when total deductions are less than 25%)
• JR116: Rent arrears deduction continuing once rent arrears are cleared and account is in credit in line with tenancy agreement
• JR86: Refusal to reduce deduction rate for recovery of hardship payments. Note: this letter does not challenge the failure to exercise discretion to waive recovery of a hardship payment, Public Law Project may be able to assist if that is the case, please see the PLP guidance made available following their High Court success on discretion to waive recovery and email: [email protected]. Please let CPAG know if you use this template.
• JR33: UC Deductions exceed 25% of standard allowance
  (client not in work - deductions in this letter include UC advances (not new claim advance), rent arrears and a tax credit o/p, the total of which exceed 25% of the client's standard allowance) This letter is complex, please contact us for assistance including if your client does not have all / has different deductions than detailed in the template. There is an index to the letter at end of the document, you may find it useful to look at this first to see how the letter is structured and what changes you will need to make. Note that when you have finished, you need to update the index to include page numbers.
• JR141: Refusal to stop deductions for fuel debt and usage when arrears have been cleared in full.

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Note: DWP have discretion to reduce total deductions to less than 25% of the standard allowance. Peter Schofield confirmed on 11/01/23 to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee – Oral evidence on DWP’s Annual Report and Accounts 2021-22 that if a claimant is experiencing hardship, and requests a reduced percentage to payback, this will be granted. Please contact [email protected] if DWP refuse to reduce total deductions to less than 25% and experiencing financial hardship which has been explained to DWP for assistance adapting the above templates if needed.

Bedroom tax following bereavement

We have the following template:

• JR3: ESA couple - death of ESA lead claimant, refusal of 'run on after a death' in new UC claim, immediate bedroom tax. This letter applies where a claimant on legacy benefits who was part of a couple previously exempt from the bedroom tax, suffers a bereavement which results in their having to make a new claim for UC, and is immediately affected by the bedroom tax. This is often the case where the client was a carer for the person who has died. You may also wish to check if their carers allowance has run on but the carer element has not been included in their UC. 

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Not the named tenant

We have the following template:

• JR37: Liability for rent when not named tenant

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Joint tenant has left

We have the following templates:

• JR96: 'Untidy tenancy' - private housing
  See note about JR19 before using.
• JR70: 'Untidy tenancy' - claimant told must confirm rent every month
  Before sending this pre-action letter, highlight to the Jobcentre the DWP note to the National Housing Federation (NHF) of June 2020.
• JR19: 'Untidy tenancy' - social housing
  Before sending this pre-action letter, request a (late) mandatory reconsideration (if within 13 months) or an any time / specified grounds revision (if outside 13 months) including: the DWP Joint Tenancies guidance (V8) and the note to the National Housing Federation (NHF) from June 2020, below. In your mandatory reconsideration / revision request expressly request a revision on official error grounds (to protect your client's ability to appeal). A template any time revision request and First-tier Tribunal appeal submission on untidy tenancies (where revision requested outside 13 months of the decision) are also available - please get in touch if this would be useful to you.

DWP Joint Tenancies guidance (V8)

DWP note to the NHS (June 2020)

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

No recourse to public funds

Please get in touch if your client has been awarded 50% rather than 100% of their eligible housing costs because they have a partner who is not named on their tenancy living with them and that partner has no recourse to public funds. CPAG may be able to assist with a mandatory reconsideration template, or a JR template to challenge the delay in providing a mandatory reconsideration notice on this issue. [email protected]

Managed payment to landlord

We have the following templates:

• JR82: Managed Payment to Landlord insisted on by DWP when tenant is left with insufficient income for living expenses (as benefit capped)
• JR110: MPTL and rent arrears deduction to wrong landlord
  Tenant has moved home and rent and rent arrears payments have continued to be deducted from their UC and paid to their former landlord, despite notification and seeking an MR (to which no response has been received).

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected].

Housing costs element refused

We have the following templates:

• JR115: UC housing costs refused as UC say accommodation is 'supported accommodation' as client receives care, but it is not as their accommodation is provided by a private landlord (and HB will not pay HB)
• JR149: MR delay and UC housing costs refused as fixed term AST has ended and tenant has remained on statutory periodic basis therefore no written agreement or fixed term. Thanks to Girlington Advice Centre for bringing this issue to CPAG's attention.

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected]. 

LCW / LCWRA element

We have the following templates:

• JR49: Failure to pay LCW element from start of claim when moving from ESA
• JR35: Failure to pay LCWRA element from start of claim when moving from ESA
• JR48: Failure to action a DS1500 and treat as LCWRA from start of claim
• JR90: Failure to treat as LCWRA when undergoing treatment for cancer and consequent failure to apply work allowance to sick pay/earnings
• JR137: Failure to pay claimant a LCWRA element from start of their UC award when they were previously in the ESA support group, ESA stopped but entitlement to NI credits for LCWRA continued until their UC claim. This letter has been removed as ADM Chapter F5 was amended in June 2023 following DWP correspondence with CPAG. If you have a client with this issue after June 2023, please contact [email protected] 

Child element

We have the following templates:

• JR97: Removal of child element following 16th birthday without checking if QYP still in FT education
• JR63: Delay / failure to supersede UC to include child element on birth of child or over 16 year old starting course of non-advanced education, including if notified late but within 13 months
  Note: if child has turned 16/18 and child element has stopped without UC checking if the child is still in education, this decision should be appealed. This letter applies to new entitlement to a child element, not failure to continue a child element. NB also, this letter assumes the award is not affected by the 2 child limit. Please send your letter for review if it is unclear how the alternative paragraphs for late notification should be applied [email protected].
• JR111: Failure / refusal to include child element in UC because child benefit not received by claimant has been removed. Please contact [email protected] if you have a client in this position.

Carer element

We have the following templates:

• JR30: UC refusal of 'run on after a death' in a new claim - benefit cap and  refusal of carer element in line with carers allowance run-on - previous joint Income Support claim (note this assumes the claimant is male and therefore has fewer discrimination arguments than the other letters, you may wish to cut and paste some grounds from the ‘Elements: Housing costs element letters if your client is female)
• JR64: Delay / failure to supersede UC to include carer element in line with award of Carers Allowance including where notified late

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected].

SDP element

We have the following template:

• JR71: Delay in superseding an income support award to include SDP, such that a new UC award does not include the SDP transitional element

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

We have the following templates:

• JR112: Refusal to reinstate income related ESA when UC claimed fraudulently
• JR75: Refusal to reinstate tax credits when UC claimed fraudulently
• JRD46: Refusal to reinstate IS or HB when UC claimed fraudulently

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Note: there is a right of appeal against a decision to terminate legacy benefits (although not immediately for tax credits) and as judicial review is a ‘remedy of last resort’ where there is a right of appeal, this must be used unless that right of appeal can be said not to be ‘effective’ (for example if your client is homeless and/or destitute as the legacy benefit was their only income).

Some success has been reported by advisers appealing termination of legacy benefits to the First-tier Tribunal where claimants have made defective claims for UC. Please feel free to use the arguments in the template above to support any mandatory reconsideration request or appeal.

If you have sought a mandatory reconsideration of the decision to terminate legacy benefits and specified a time limit for a response from the DWP / HMRC and explained why this time frame is reasonable in the circumstances, and no mandatory reconsideration notice has been received, you may wish to include an additional ground of 'failure to provide a decision within a reasonable time' which you can find in any of the template letters challenging mandatory reconsideration delays under ‘Decisions making delay including mandatory reconsideration’ on this page.

Earnings

Johnson (non-banking day shift) DWP advice: Claimants should post something on their UC journal asking for an RTI dispute to be raised and for the RTI dispute team to apply reg 61(6) UC Regs 2013 so that one monthly wage is assigned to a different assessment period.  While it is not an RTI dispute it appears to be the RTI dispute team who will deal with re-assignment. If having posted on their journal, the payment is not reassigned within a reasonable period (not defined) please contact [email protected]

We have the following templates:

• JR12: Real Time Information incorrectly reported
• JR81: Refusal to provide a UC mandatory reconsideration notice because: "there is no right to an MR because the challenge relates to a policy issue". This letter was drafted as "failure to apply Johnson", but can be used in a number of scenarios. 
• JR94: Failure to disregard an overpayment of wages as income

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Work allowance

We have the following templates:

• JR90: Failure to treat as LCWRA when undergoing treatment for cancer and consequent failure to apply work allowance to sick pay/earnings
• JR89: Failure to apply work allowance to earnings/sick pay when claimant treated as having LCWRA due to cancer treatment

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected].

Fostering allowance

We have the following templates:

• JR95: Failure to disregard fostering allowance as income (earned or unearned)

For a copy of this templates contact [email protected].

• Fostering allowance as income letter: If you are a foster carer and your fostering allowance has been treated as income, Hertfordshire Council’s Money Advice Unit have prepared this letter which you can use based on the position set out in JR95 (you can use this without an adviser). If this is unsuccessful, please ask an adviser to send the JR95 judicial review template on your behalf.

EU settled status

We have the following templates:

• JR8: Refusal of UC when has indefinite leave to remain under EU settlement scheme - this letter has been removed. You, or your client, can use the following template to make a mandatory reconsideration request instead: EU settled status MR request
• JR117: Suspension of UC when claimant applied to the EUSS before the deadline but has not yet received a decision and had a non I(EEA) Regs leave to remain with recourse to public funds before the end of the transition period on 30/06/21
  Kindly drafted and shared by Hackney Community Law Centre, who may be able to accept a referral if this template is unsuccessful, please contact the law centre.
• JR118: Suspension of UC when claimant applied to EUSS before the 30/06/21 deadline but has not yet received a decision and had an I(EEA) Regs right to reside (eg, worker) before the end of the transition period on 31/12/20

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

EU pre-settled status

For pre-settled status after 6 May 2019, please refer to our test cases page on Fratila and another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 53 for information on CPAG's pre-settled status legal challenge. If your client has any other qualifying right to reside seek a mandatory reconsideration of the DWP’s decision to refuse UC without consideration of your client's alternative right to reside.  

If your client has pre-settled status, is destitute or has an alternative R2R, and their UC claim has been stayed behind SSWP'S appeal in SSWP v AT, see our test case page on SSWP v AT (AIRE Centre and IMA Intervening) [2022] UKUT 330 (AAC); SSWP v AT [2023] EWCA Civ 1307 for further resources. The Supreme Court refused the Secretary of State permission to appeal SSWP v AT on 07/02/24. The successful Court of Appeal decision is now final. The resources on this page relating to AT have therefore mostly been removed pending updates. 

We have the following template:

• JR143: refusal to lift stay behind SSWP v AT on new claim following claimant change of circumstances - has/had pre-settled status and now has EU settled status/qualifying R2R. This letter will need editing as the Supreme Court refused the Secretary of State permission to appeal on 07/02/24. The successful Court of Appeal decision is now final. See the notes under EU pre-settled status for further resources.

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Habitual residence test

Note: all letters will need editing to confirm your client has a qualifying right to reside, ie, if s/he is not British or Irish that s/he has either:

• EU Settled Status, or
• EU Pre-Settled Status and a qualifying Right to Reside under the EEA Regs, or 
• applied to the EU Settlement Scheme and is awaiting a decision and has a qualifying Right to Reside under the EEA Regs, or
• leave to enter or remain in the UK other than pre-settled status or leave to enter as a holder of an EUSS Family Permit of Travel Permit
• non-EEA leave to remain

Please get in touch if you have a client whose UC has been suspended for an unreasonable period (particularly if this is due to ID reverification), a template may be available: [email protected]

We have the following templates:

• JR118: Suspension of UC when claimant applied to EUSS before the 30/06/21 deadline but has not yet received a decision and had an I(EEA) Regs right to reside (eg, worker) before the end of the transition period on 31/12/20
• JR117: Suspension of UC when claimant applied to the EUSS before the deadline but has not yet received a decision and had a non I(EEA) Regs leave to remain with recourse to public funds before the end of the transition period on 30/06/21. Thanks to Hackney Community Law Centre (HCLC) for drafting and sharing this template. They may be able to accept a referral if this template is unsuccessful, contact HCLC.
• JR41: Failure to make enquiries of the DWP, Home Office or HMRC to establish HRT or to consider the claimant's oral evidence when no other evidence exists - UC. Note: needs to have applied to EU settlement scheme if EU national / non EEA national with right to reside (R2R) dependent on an EEA national before 30/06/21 (unless has non EEA leave to remain under the Immigration Rules). Edits will be needed depending on whether you are arguing the claimant has their own R2R or is relying on that of an(other) EEA national.
• JR40: Delay in making an HRT decision (and consequent delay in UC)
• JR10: UC delay in providing UC MR decision (when MR was requested of HRT decision- but can be edited for any MR)
• JR88: Incorrectly required to meet HRT for UC – migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR125: Suspension in whole (rather than in part) UC couple award where only one partner's HRT has been called into question
  Based on letter shared by Hackney Community Law Centre.
• JR14: failure to apply HRT exemption to a refugee /other exempt status
• JR50: delay implementing positive HRT decision and deciding UC claim
  Can be edited for any delay deciding a UC claim, you would need to remove all references to HRT and the discrimination ground.

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

• Template journal messages for a refugee making a new claim for Universal Credit This document provides templates for messages which can be posted in the claimant’s online UC journal regarding some of the key requirements for a person making a new claim for UC after having recently been granted leave further to an asylum claim and should be used before sending a pre-action letter.
• JR15: Refugee not offered UC advance
• JR155B: PIP awarded to expiry date of BRP as taken as expiry date of LTR, and expiry date of LTR is irrelevant
  This template challenges DWP's decision to award PIP only to the expiry date date of a claimant's BRP where the BRP expiry is not the expiry date of their leave to remain (LTR), and also expiry of LTR is irrelevant to the term of a PIP award, which should be set in line with a claimant's needs.
• JR156: refugee required to produce BRP when not yet issued; unlawful application of HRT, and failure to offer a UC new claim advance
  This letter covers 3 issues. Separate templates exist re HRT requirement and failure to offer an advance and should be used instead if this is the only issue.
• JR14: failure to apply HRT exemption to a refugee /other exempt status
• JR127: Incorrect application of HRT to Afghan refugee and consequent delay in determining UC claim (inc NINo issue). This letter can be edited for use with Ukrainian refugees with reference to The Social Security (Habitual Residence and Past Presence) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, and for Sudanese refugees with reference to the Social Security (Habitual Residence and Past Presence) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (see ADM Memo 10/23  for DWP guidance). 

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

UC NINo gatekeeping or delay

Our letter templates on this issue have been removed following CPAG's litigation on the UC NINo requirement, see our test cases page: R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (Onakoya v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] UK 189 AAC; [2023] EWCA Civ 566 and the subsequent coming into force of the Social Security and Universal Credit (Migration of Tax Credit Claimants and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 on 01/04/24, which makes having a NINo a requirement to receive a UC Advance.

Note: The DWP NINo process has changed. The DWP advised CPAG on 23/11/23 as follows:

“The DCI1 form (in electronic form: EDCI1) is still in use. This form alerts the NINo team to initiate the NINo application process for a customer.

The NINo team have now developed a digital NINo application. On receipt of the EDCI1, the NINo team send a text message to the customer containing a link to an on-line NINo application. Using this link, the customer can complete their details and upload copies of their identity documents; the process takes around 10-15 minutes.

This digital process replaces the previous clerical NINo application which was completed at a face-to-face appointment, thus saving time and effort for the customer as they no longer have to attend a NINo interview.

The journal entry about the text message is to make the customer aware that they will be contacted by text to avoid any concerns about the authenticity of the text, and to encourage the customer to complete the link to apply for a NINo as soon as possible.

DWP has amended its internal guidance for staff to reflect these updates to the NINo application process, however work is currently ongoing to update the publicly available version on Gov.uk”

We have the following templates:

• JR61: Failure to exercise discretion not to recover an overpayment of UC (generic - where overpayment is a result of official error and claimant is experiencing financial hardship)
  Contact debt management to request a waiver before sending this template. Note that this letter can be edited for any failure to exercise discretion not to recover an overpayment of UC, if you need assistance to do so, please contact [email protected].
• JR60: Failure to exercise discretion not to recover an overpayment of UC housing costs (unclaimed entitlement to Housing Benefit and so no loss to the public purse, the o/p was a result of official error and the claimant is experiencing financial hardship
  Contact debt management to request a waiver before sending this template.
• Additional legitimate expectation and breach of A1P1 grounds
  Shared by the Public Law Project.

Additional legitimate expectation ground

In addition to the arguments made in JR60 and JR61 (above) a 'breach of legitimate expectation' argument may be made where a claimant has repeatedly checked with the DWP whether their award is correct, has been wrongly advised by the Jobcentre, and has relied on the JC+ advice to their detriment, see R (K) v SSWP  [2023] EWHC 233 (Admin). However, where there is no repeated checking by a claimant that the award is correct, there may still be an A1P1 ECHR breach, see AKAREVIC v. CROATIA (European Court of Human Rights) (Application no. 48921/13) in particular paras 58- 64.

The Public Law Project has kindly shared the above additional legitimate expectation grounds. These grounds have been and can be included in the other templates above, or can replace content as appropriate. If you are including this content additionally, make sure the 'law and policy' in these grounds is included in your letter (but not duplicated). The grounds rely on both R(K) v SSWP and Akarevic v Croatia.

• JR120: UC award "closed" and overpayment due to failure to provide ID evidence further to ID reverification when UC awarded initially during Covid easement
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR120(b): UC award "closed" and overpayment due to failure to provide ID evidence further to ID reverification when UC awarded initially during Covid easement - NO CURRENT UC ENTITLEMENT
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR123: UC award "closed", MR delay, and overpayment due to failure to provide a selfie further to ID reverification when UC initially awarded during Covid easement
• JR138: UC award 'closed' and overpayment for non attendance at JC+ interviews. Thanks to Citizens Advice Epping Forest District for drafting and sharing this template. See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Payments

We have the following templates:

• JR53: Split UC payments - 50/50 split insisted on by DWP when unequal share has been requested by disabled partner
• JR68: Failure to pay on a new claim while calculating a period of backdating for a previous award - UC
  This template has been adapted with the kind permission of Osbornes Law. For help sending the pre-action letter or in the event of a negative response from DWP, please contact Osbornes Law (Camden office) (osborneslaw.com/contact-us) to refer your client.
• JR105: PAP lump sum overpayment recovery of tax credits from underpayment of UC LCWRA element

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Suspensions

We have the following template:

• JR125: Suspension in whole (rather than in part) UC couple award where only one partner's HRT has been called into question. Thanks to Hackney Community Law Centre for sharing their template on this.

For a copy this template contact [email protected].

We have the following templates:

• JR133: Aged 19+, rec'ing PIP, in non-advanced education, would have LCWRA if assessed, studies not incompatible with work-related requirements as would have none due to disability - UC refused. CPAG may be able to accept referrals on this issue.
• JR129: UC claim closed as estranged 16/17 year old 'receiving education' or 'living with someone in place of a parent'
  See information about mandatory reconsideration in this circumstance.
• JR102: Delay in providing PIP decision, impacting means tested benefit eligibility. Thanks to Student Services, King’s College London for sharing their template on this issue.
• JR93: Refusal to accept claim for new style ESA as claimant has insufficient National Insurance contributions (gatekeeping) & not treating as claim for LCW National Insurance Credits. This letter assumes the claimant is a student, receives PIP, and has an appointee. If other eligibility for ESA is disputed please contact [email protected].

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

See also the mandatory reconsideration template: Someone aged 16 or 17 is refused UC despite waiting to be referred for a WCA - this template can be used when a 16 or 17 year old is refused UC despite having provided evidence of having LCW. Note that this template has been drafted on the basis that the claimant is not receiving education. (last updated March 2022)

Delay / refusal to carry out WCA

We have the following templates:

• JR104: Delay in deciding LCWRA - Inconclusive or no telephone WCA told "wait for a face-to-face assessment"
  (edits needed if no WCA carried out at all already)
• JR47: Failure to send for a WCA within a reasonable time: UC (claimant receives PIP, has inappropriate conditionality and will be in LCWRA group once assessed)
• JR101: Refusal to carry out a WCA as over pension age (mixed age UC couple)

For a copy of any of these templates contact [email protected].

Insufficient reasons for WCA decision

We have the following template:

• JR79: Generic or no reasons provided for UC WCA decision - frustrating appeal rights

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Students

We have the following template:

• JR93: Refusal to accept claim for new style ESA as claimant has insuff NI contributions (gatekeeping) & not treating as claim for LCW National Insurance Credits. This letter assumes the claimant is a student, receives PIP, and has an appointee. If other eligibility for ESA is disputed please contact [email protected].

For a copy of this template contact [email protected].

Not treated as having LCWRA

We have the following templates:

• JR48: Failure to action a DS1500 and treat as LCWRA from start of claim
• JR90: Failure to treat as LCWRA when undergoing treatment for cancer and consequent failure to apply work allowance to sick pay/earnings

For a copy of either of these templates contact [email protected].