Max Deductions from Ubiversal Credit

AndrewHall

@calcotti


I am not here to argue.  If you want to defend a corrupt organisation, it is your choice. 

AndrewHall

poppy123456 said:

@AndrewHall when claiming UC all overpayments are recoverable, even if if it's their error.

Seems you like to jump to conclusion.  If you read my post carefully, I said you can still show you are entitled the benefit you received..

poppy123456

AndrewHall said:

poppy123456 said:

@AndrewHall when claiming UC all overpayments are recoverable, even if if it's their error.

Seems you like to jump to conclusion.  If you read my post carefully, I said you can still show you are entitled the benefit you received..

Yet another person that likes to “assume” I don’t read posts correctly. 

tru88le

As a footnote I complained to my MP the DWP just sent me £75  this week and admitted they failed on multiple levels, not responding, to messages, promising things in my journal and not doing it, saying things that were not accurate and shouldnt have been said anyway, not returning calls or calling when arranged.
Means nothing though, living on £50 a month nearly did me in, i got it back, the three months carers money they deducted came first then the backdated LCWRA but i'll still be in debt for a couple of years, no credit worthiness either  after years of repairing it. They basically ruined my life for a year.
I'd like to see anyone survive on £12.50  a week for four months..,

tru88le

AndrewHall said:

@tru88le


I will advise people to challenge the justification of recoverability of any overpayment rather than just agreeing to repayments. 

DWP is the most corrupt organisation I know of and they will lie to take money off you. Yes, I know there are some apologists and agents on this forum who will never see any wrongdoing in DWP.

If the overpayment is more than six years and the DWP is now bringing it up,,say so.

If the DWP's negligence contributed to the overpayments, say so.

If you were not informed of benefit rules, say so.

If you feel you are entitled to the benefit you received,  say so.

I could go on .....

Remember,  you should appeal to the Tribunal where it is more difficult for DWP to justify the recovery of overpayments. 

You could indeed go on and it might at some point have some effect but it will be long after the time when it should have been done and will not spare anyone the pain .
As I said they took too much, i covered all the reasons with CA and that they were taking too much and they promised and ultimately as their admussion stated this is cut from 4 pages, there explanation still wasnt fully accurate which I could take issue with, such as they stated they sorted the lcwra backpayment straight away when in fact it was awarded from a MR that i didnt actually even request because i didnt kniw they werent planning on giving me the backpay,. What hapoened was by quoting the case manager who said it would be backdated they took that journal entry  and used it as the basis for a MR and then allowed it. Basically i susoect doing that was their way of correcting it  and  by creating a MR using the journal entry as a substitute for a regular request for an MR, in other words they have to have a reason for an MR for the sake of whatever a MR wont just happen by itself but they needed it to happen to be able to complete the requirements needed that there be a reason for a MR and thus
 a reason for paying the backpayment  and they used the journal entry because it could be interpreted as me requesting a MR even though it was actualky me quoting the case manager...
And a year later they said: 

 I sincerely apologise that our responses to his enquiries 

were sometimes misdirected. On multiple occasions we failed to respond to his 

journal messages in a timely manner or even at all I am sorry 

that we failed to provide the level of service he has a right to expect,we have awarded a consolatory payment of £75.0"

So people can state what they like about rules but your point will only be  cinsidered if you complain. The problemis simple.
The staff we speak to on the phone have no administrative authority, they cannot  resolve a payment or authorise a deduction to end or change anything related to money or your details of your claim, they can only pass it on to someone who can which will be a case manager, any promoses they make to change or resolve are lies as they are not authorised to alter anything involving money. If people knew this the system would be freed up because peolle would know its not worth wasting your time and breathe on calls to them. Ssme with the journal, i sent too much that they were ten messages behind in their replies and again the journal responder has no power to change anything hence the numerous promises and certainties that they failed to fulfill. They were simply lying to me.
They answer queries but dont expect anything tobe dine after the call.
They dont make mistakes, the problems are simply the wrong data going in gives the wrong result. There are no limits to what they can deduct if they choose to classify a debt as a fraudulant one and the criteria for this can be apparently quite innicent such as not telling Income Support your  claiming UC, why would you? But thats grounds for them to take what they want.
In all honesty did anyone here have a straight firward reply instead of linis to DWP tables or requests to repeat what i'm saying.
Rights dont mean anything coming from the applicant, they have to be transmitred correctly by people trained to know where to insert it in their system which is why so many are treated badly all they know is to phone and leave journal notes, even scope saying "phone them and say..." do they realky think that works?
Its doomed because of the above reasons. Theres no recourse for any hassle or ineptitude, no rights for sure that will get you what you want any quicker.