Universal Credit – past earning consultation

NAWRA has submitted a response to the Social Security Advisory Committee consultation concerning the government’s intention that ‘surplus earnings’ from the previous six months should be taken into account when a person reclaims universal credit (UC).

The proposal suggests that any ‘surplus earnings’ – defined as earnings more than just £100 (less than £25 per week) over the ‘nil UC threshold’ – will be used to reduce future UC payments if the claimant returns to UC within six months. NAWRA does not believe that these earnings can be considered in any way ‘surplus’. They represent essential additional income to enable households to try and lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty.

We have reasserted the points made previously about the difficulties any delay in benefit payment causes, including the risk of claimants losing their housing, being forced into the hands of payday lenders and the risk of destitution. Additionally we believe that this change will act as a disincentive to work.

The DWP state that the policy is designed to prevent claimants and employers from ‘manipulating’ the system but we ask what evidence there is to support this assertion?

NAWRA does not believe that this policy could ever operate effectively. We assert that the proposal can only bring further poverty and hardship to those that already in desperate need.

Read our response.


NAWRA’s submission to SSAC on waiting days for universal credit

The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) consulted on the government’s intention that certain Universal Credit claimants must wait 7 days before they are entitled to benefit.

NAWRA surveyed members to find out what they thought would be the impact of this policy.

Based on the results, we submitted our response where we stress in the strongest possible terms our complete opposition to this proposal.  What came over time and time again in the survey responses was the spiral of debt and destitution that would occur due to the cumulative effects of this policy.


Test case referrals

Referrals to CPAG

Child Poverty Action Group is always looking to take on a limited number of test cases each year. They are currently particularly keen to focus on the following issues –

  •   benefit delays
  •   local welfare provision
  •   inappropriate work-related activity
  •   judicial review in the upper tribunal

More information

Challenging inappropriate work-related activity

On this point, Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers has drawn up a paper on the sort of cases that would be good to challenge. He is really interested to hear about cases where someone has been sent for inappropriate work-related activity when the DWP holds evidence that it clearly would be inappropriate (eg from the points awarded in the ESA85 or from other medical evidence that has been sent into them). This is happening a lot as medical information is not sent through to the work provider and Tom is keen to challenge this as public law error.

Although referral would have to be via a solicitor Tom is happy to discuss any potential case and his email is on the attached document.

Please do get in touch with Tom about any possible cases. A successful challenge would benefit all our clients.



At our Glasgow conference today we heard an impassioned appeal from Dr David Webster, from the University of Glasgow, for the current sanctions regime to be abolished.

Some links to Dr Webster’s research, his presentation at NAWRA and some further resources that may be of use to advisers are available in the members’ area.


NAWRA’s submission to the PIP review

NAWRA has responded to the call for evidence in the first independent review of PIP assessment.  Read our response.

Thanks very much to all members who got in touch to tell us about their experience of advising PIP claimants.  We received over 100 responses, all of which helped inform our submission.  The evidence we have submitted is particularly strong as it comes from so many advisers from across the UK working in a wide variety of advice services.

Thanks are also due to Julie Henry of Durham Welfare Rights who did a great job of collating all the evidence and drafting the submission.