Universal Credit Revisions
This article explains how revisions work in Universal Credit. The article gives some tactics for getting decisions changed and maximising arrears of benefit in different situations.
Revision is one of the ways that Universal Credit (UC) decisions can be changed. This article should be read together with related articles on UC decisions, and other mechanisms for changing decisions: supersession, and suspension and termination. A revision is a change to the original decision, which therefore takes effect on the same date that the original decision did.¹ In contrast, a supersession is a new decision which replaces the original decision from a later date. The original decision stays intact, but the benefit award changes from the later date.
The framework for changing decisions through revisions and supersessions is established by The Social Security Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”). There are further provisions in secondary legislation, which for the purposes of UC is The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 (“the DA Regs”). Under the 1998 Act, decisions are final. This means that once it has been made, a decision can only be changed through specific mechanisms if there are grounds to do so: revision, supersession, suspension and termination, being corrected, or being changed or replaced on appeal.²
If a client has been refused benefit, or hasn’t been awarded the full amount they’re entitled to, you need to know the rules about revisions and supersessions in order to maximise the amount of arrears paid to the client. It’s often particularly important to see if there’s a way to change an earlier decision because of the limited provisions for backdating in Universal Credit.³
When can a decision be revised?
A decision can be revised if the original decision was incorrect and needs to be changed. A decision can only take into account the circumstances up until the date that the decision is made. This means that the decision can only be revised if that decision was wrong at the time it was made. It cannot be revised if the decision became wrong later, as a result of a later change in circumstances. If a decision to award UC becomes wrong at a later date due to a change of circumstances, that decision can be superseded instead. However if the original decision was to refuse UC, and then becomes wrong at a later date due to a change of circumstances, the client will need to make a new claim instead.
A decision can be revised more than once. A client can apply more than once for a revision, as long as they have grounds on which to do so.
Any grounds revisions
If a revision is requested within the time limit, it can be revised without needing a specific reason. The client just needs to show that the original decision was not correct. This is referred to as a revision “on any grounds”. It is done under regulation 5 of the DA Regs. What the DWP refers to as Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) is often a request for a revision on any grounds. Revision on any grounds is a particularly useful way for decisions to be changed, as long as the request is made within the time limit.
If entitlement only arises as a result of a change of circumstances after the decision was made, the decision can’t be revised on any grounds. The client would instead need to make a new claim.⁴
The time limit for a revision on any grounds is one month. The time limit can be extended by the DWP, up to an absolute maximum of 13 months. The client needs to ask for an extension of the time limit, explaining their reasons. The DWP needs to agree that
- it is reasonable to grant it, and
- there were ‘special circumstances’ making it impractical for the client to apply in time.⁵
If there’s an appeal, the Tribunal can also extend the time limit in the same way that the DWP can.
The phrase “special circumstances” is not defined. The Advice for Decision Making (ADM) guidance at Chapter A3 states that this “should be interpreted broadly”.⁶ It could include factors like
- language or learning difficulties
- misunderstanding the law
- difficulties with the postal service
- serious illness.
The guidance states that if the client is claiming benefit on the basis of their health conditions, it may be appropriate to accept serious illness as a special circumstance.
The longer the delay, the more compelling the special circumstances should be.⁷ However, the guidance states that “applicants are not expected to show that their circumstances are exceptional.” It also states that an extension should be allowed “where the person is able to explain why their application for a revision is late. Applicants are not expected to show unexpected or exceptional circumstances.”⁸
Any time revisions
Revisions can also be carried out on specific grounds in certain circumstances. Specific grounds revisions have no time limit within which they need to be requested, so are known as “any-time revisions”. This means that they are particularly useful when the absolute time limit for a revision on any grounds has passed. If a decision can be revised on specific grounds it allows older decisions to be changed, which can increase the amount of arrears the client can get. There are a number of different specific grounds for a revision which will be covered below.
1. Official error
A decision can be revised on specific grounds if the decision arose from official error. This is under regulation 9(a) of the DA Regs. An official error means an error made by an officer of the DWP or HMRC, or a person employed by or acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or someone providing services on their behalf. The error must not have been caused or materially contributed to by someone outside one of those offices.⁹ An official error could include
- getting the law wrong
- failing to take relevant information into account
- failing to ask the client about something relevant towards their entitlement.
There is guidance on what is meant by official error in Chapter A3 of the ADM at paragraph A3103.
If your client can show that the decision was made due to an official error, the decision can be revised however long ago it was made.
2. Qualifying benefits
Another specific ground for revision is where there is a qualifying benefit award. This is under regulation 12 of the DA Regs. This applies if the DWP has made an original decision to award UC, but subsequently an award of another relevant benefit is made for a period including the date on which the original decision took effect. In this situation, the original UC decision can be revised, however long ago the original decision was made.
The award of the other benefit must be made to the claimant themselves or a member of their family. For this purpose, “family” includes their partner, and any child or qualifying young person they are responsible for.
Note that the original decision must have been a decision to award UC. If UC was refused under the original decision, the decision cannot be revised on this ground.
A relevant benefit is one which changes the amount of UC that someone is entitled to. Often this is a disability benefit, which will add a disabled child addition or a carer element. Other ways a UC award can be affected by a qualifying benefit include
- the number of bedrooms allowed in calculating the Local Housing Allowance rate,
- whether there is an under-occupancy charge,
- whether there’s a housing costs contribution deducted,
- when and whether a limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) element can be included,
- whether they get a work allowance, and
- whether they are subject to the benefit cap.
If a client is awarded Carer’s Allowance (CA), this would be a relevant benefit for the purposes of the carer element. However, the disability benefit awarded to the person the client is looking after can also be considered a relevant benefit in this situation. This is because there is no requirement to claim CA in order to be entitled to the carer element.¹⁰
Example — Ian
Ian claims Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for their daughter Marie on 5 November 2019, and then claims UC on 1 December 2019. The DLA is initially refused. Following an appeal, a Tribunal decides in January 2022 to award Marie the lowest rate of the care component. As a result of this relevant benefit award, Ian is now entitled to a disabled child addition for Marie in their UC. The original decision awarding Ian UC from 1 December 2019 can be revised on specific grounds of a relevant benefit award. The revision takes effect on 1 December 2019, the date that the original decision took effect. Ian is awarded full arrears of the disabled child addition going back to 1 December 2019.
Example — Malika
Malika is a carer for their mother. Malika claims UC on 1 October 2021. On 15 February 2022, a decision is made to award Malika’s mother Attendance Allowance (AA) from 15 September 2021. Malika cannot qualify for CA due to their earnings, but meets the other qualifying conditions for CA so is now entitled to the carer element. However, there is no relevant benefit award to allow a revision on specific grounds.
- The AA would count as a relevant benefit, but Malika’s mother does not count as a family member
- There is no award of CA made to Malika
The award cannot be revised on specific grounds. However, the award can be revised on any grounds if the time limit is extended, as it is still within the absolute time limit of 13 months. Malika can argue that the time limit should be extended because it was not possible for them to request the revision before the AA decision was made. Malika can only get arrears of the element if this is agreed. If the DWP does not agree to extend the time limit and revise the decision on any grounds, Malika can appeal.
3. Other specific grounds
A decision can be revised on specific grounds if the original decision was made in ignorance of, or based on a mistake as to, some material fact, and as a result was more advantageous to the claimant than it would otherwise have been.¹¹ This only applies in cases when the client gets less benefit as a result of the revision, so has little use for clients.
A decision can be revised on specific grounds where there is an outstanding appeal that hasn’t been decided yet. If the client has appealed and is waiting for the appeal to be decided, the DWP can revise the original decision.¹²
If there’s an outstanding appeal in relation to an earlier decision, and a new decision is made, the new decision can be revised on specific grounds when the appeal is decided. This might be used, for example, if new information comes to light as part of the appeal proceedings.¹³
Some specific types of decision can be revised on other specific grounds:
- A decision to reduce the amount of benefit awarded due to the benefit cap (this has no time limit),¹⁴
- A decision to impose a sanction,¹⁵ and
- A decision that cannot be appealed.¹⁵
Appeal rights where a revision has been requested
A client must apply for a revision of a decision before they are able to appeal that decision. This is referred to as Mandatory Reconsideration (MR). Appeal rights run from the date of the MR decision.¹⁷ The DWP must consider the MR request before the client can appeal.¹⁸ However, note that the requirement for an MR to be considered before the client can appeal only applies if the original decision states that that is the case. If the client’s benefit has stopped without the DWP providing a proper decision notice that sets out their MR and appeal rights, the client can appeal directly to the Tribunal instead.¹⁹
The MR notice will be a decision to revise or not revise the original decision. The client can appeal if the DWP decides not to revise the decision, unless it’s a decision that doesn’t carry a right of appeal (such as a decision to suspend benefit payments). If the decision has been revised but the client still disagrees with the revised decision, the client does not need to request a further MR, but can appeal straight away.²⁰
The Tribunal can stand in the shoes of the DWP. It can change a decision through an ‘any grounds’ revision if the request was made within the time limits. This includes having the ability to extend the time limit, up to the absolute limit of 13 months. The Tribunal cannot change a decision through a revision if it wasn’t requested within the absolute time limit and there are no specific grounds.
Case law has established that if it is unclear whether there’s a specific ground, the Tribunal can admit the appeal. The Tribunal will only have jurisdiction to hear the appeal if there is a specific ground. As a result, the Tribunal will first have to decide if there’s an official error. If the Tribunal agrees that there was an official error, it can admit the appeal. If there’s no specific ground, the Tribunal will have to strike out the appeal.²¹
Example — Fred
Fred applies for UC and is refused. 15 months later, Fred requests a revision of the decision. The DWP refuses to revise, saying that it is outside the time limit to revise. Fred appeals.
The Tribunal must consider whether there was an official error in order to establish whether the decision can be revised on specific grounds. This will determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. If the Tribunal decides there was an official error, it will have jurisdiction to hear Fred’s appeal and remake the decision. However, if it decides that there was no official error, the Tribunal must strike out the appeal, as there’s no specific ground on which it can be revised.
Summary
If a decision was incorrect, it can be revised
- On any grounds if the request is made within the time limit, including any extension, or
- On specific grounds if certain circumstances apply, such as official error or the award of another relevant benefit. This can be done at any time.
There are some situations when a decision to award benefit needs to be changed, but it cannot be revised. This includes
- Where the decision was correct at the time, but is no longer correct, for example due to a change of circumstances, and
- Where it is out of time for a revision on any grounds, and there are no specific grounds.
In these situations, the decision can’t be revised and will need to be superseded instead. Supersessions are covered in a separate article which should be read alongside this one.
In other situations, a client won’t be able to revise or supersede the original decision, so will need to make a new benefit claim instead. This includes where a decision to refuse UC was correct at the time, but the client has become entitled to UC at a later date due to a change of circumstance.
Josh Gilbert works as a Welfare Benefit expert in the Expert Advice team at Citizens Advice.
The information in this article is correct as of the date of publication.
Unfortunately, we are unable to respond to comments left on the medium site — please contact expertadvicesupport@citizensadvice.org.uk if you wish to give feedback on an article.
References
[1] Section 9(3), Social security Act 1998; regulation 21, The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[2] Section 17, Social Security Act 1998
[3] Regulation 26, The Universal Credit, PIP, JSA and ESA (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013
[4] Regulation 5(2)(a), The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[5] Regulation 6, The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[6] ADM Chapter A3, paragraph A3055
[7] Regulation 6(6), The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[8] ADM Chapter A3, paragraph A3056; paragraph A3016
[9] Regulation 2, The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[10] Regulations 29 and 30, UC Regulations 2013
[11] Regulations 8 and 9(b), The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[12] Regulation 11(1), The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[13] Regulation 11(2), The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[14] Regulation 19(1), The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013; Regulation 81, UC Regulations 2013; ADM Chapter A3 Paragraph A3118
[15] Regulation 14(1)©, The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[16] Regulation 10, The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[17] Section 9(5) Social Security Act 1998
[18] Section 12(3A), The Social Security Act 1998; Regulation 7, The UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
[19] PP v SSWP (UC) [2020] UKUT 0109 (AAC) para 26
[20] ADM Chapter A3, paragraph A3060
