Linking periods for the Work & Health Programme

You usually have to break your claim for 29 days to break the 24 month linking period.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/460725/response/1142387/attach/3/24%20months%20unemployment%20check.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Non Deficere wrote:You usually have to break your claim for 29 days to break the 24 month linking period.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/460725/response/1142387/attach/3/24%20months%20unemployment%20check.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

I am in this situation now, friday I am meeting WC for the first step to be mandated onto WHP.

So what is this saying, I close my UC claim for 29 days, then apply for UC again and it is classed as a new period and I would have to be claiming for 24 months until I am able to be mandated onto the WHP again?

MightyQunit wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:You usually have to break your claim for 29 days to break the 24 month linking period.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/460725/response/1142387/attach/3/24%20months%20unemployment%20check.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

I am in this situation now, friday I am meeting WC for the first step to be mandated onto WHP.

So what is this saying, I close my UC claim for 29 days, then apply for UC again and it is classed as a new period and I would have to be claiming for 24 months until I am able to be mandated onto the WHP again?

Correct.

"I would suggest a FOI request and then confirm in writing.
A welfare adviser would have to do the same."
https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t3655-29-day-break-in-claim-no-referral-to-work-health-programme-for-long-term-unemployed-24-months#9991
More discussion, resources and ideas at:
https://welfare-central.org/index.php/forum-home/work-health-programme/3330-mandated-onto-work-health-programme
https://welfare-central.org/index.php/forum-home/work-health-programme/3336-claim-break-29-days-no-referral-to-work-health-programme-4-long-term-unemployed

FOI requests can be submitted via email
Freedom-of-Information-Request@DWP.GOV.UK
or
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/dwp
or a UC Journal!

One of the concerns raised on W-C is in connection with example 4.

The 37 days were not a break, it was established the claimant was claiming UC.

Definition of the UC IWSR

Intensive Work Search -for those who are able to work, but are either not working at the moment or are in work but earning low amounts below theAdministrative Earnings Threshold. They are expected to take intensive action to secure work or more work attending regular Work-Focused Interviews, attending Work Search Reviews(at least fortnightly) and undertaking work preparation, work search and other work-related activities.Conditionality group is 'All Work-Related Requirements'.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/366996/response/904624/attach/5/2%20Conditionality%20and%20regime%20Overview.pdf

The Restart date is not always the new claim date due to errors/other reasons. The restart date determines the linking period.

Non Deficere wrote:One of the concerns raised on W-C is in connection with example 4.

The 37 days were not a break, it was established the claimant was claiming UC.

Definition of the UC IWSR

Intensive Work Search -for those who are able to work, but are either not working at the moment or are in work but earning low amounts below theAdministrative Earnings Threshold. They are expected to take intensive action to secure work or more work attending regular Work-Focused Interviews, attending Work Search Reviews(at least fortnightly) and undertaking work preparation, work search and other work-related activities.Conditionality group is 'All Work-Related Requirements'.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/366996/response/904624/attach/5/2%20Conditionality%20and%20regime%20Overview.pdf

The Restart date is not always the new claim date due to errors/other reasons.  The restart date determines the linking period.

Hi ND,

Trying to understand Example 4 as it refers to a First claim and a Second claim, but during
the 37 day break was in receipt of UC "IWSR in the break period"? What I cannot understand
is why the 37 days are referred to as a "break" but the UC claim is active due to being on IWSR and when on IWSR in the 37 days why the example refers to a First and Second claim. Some thoughts on WC forum is that to break a UC claim 6 assessment periods has to elapse, to restart the WHP LTU 24 month mandatory referral clock. I can't find anything that explicitly supports this view other than a UC claim can be easily restarted within 6 months (6 assessment periods), akin to the old JSA rapid reclaim.
reapply-for-universal-credit
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/claiming/reapply-for-universal-credit/



Rule 4
Claims more than 26 weeks
(183 days)
This fourth and final check looks at breaks of 29
days or more.
If the potential participant was in receipt of UC
IWSR [Intensive Work Search Regime] in the break period,
we consider the claims to
count towards the 24 month unemployment period.
See: Example four


Example 4 summary

First claim 01/09/16 (UC IWSR)
37 day break
Second claim 16/04/17
WHP Eligibility Date 31/08/18

Claims duration (1) 190 days + Claim (2) 503 days + 37 day break = 730

24 months = 730 days

Example four otes says

break is 29 days or more
 this would normally break the period of
the claims and therefore wouldn't be
able to be added together towards
meeting the 24 month unemployment
period
 work coach goes into CIS and identifies
that the potential participant was on UC
(IWSR) for this period
 This means the periods of the claims
can be added together towards meeting
the 24 month unemployment period
use the restart date of the first claim - *01/09/16
WHP Eligibility Date 31/08/18
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/460725/response/1142387/attach/3/24%20months%20unemployment%20check.pdf

"Re-claims period
Re-claims provides a simple route back onto Universal Credit for claimants who
have a short break in entitlement, for example, entering temporary work.
The re-claims period begins from the first day the claimant is not entitled to
Universal Credit up to six assessment periods from this date.
Opt-out
Claimants cannot opt out of the re-claim process. All claimants will be subject to
a re-claim if they return to Universal Credit within six assessment periods of their
entitlement ending."
data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2019-0465/Re-claims_v5.0.pdf

Hi Frank

The FOI reply doesn't include information that JCP staff already know.

The member of staff will have used LMS to determine elegibility and it will have appeared that there had been a 37 day break, but after following guidance and checking other systems it was discovered that the person was actually claiming UC during the the 37 days, so infact there was a continuous 24 month unemployment benefit claim.

Hope this makes sense.

Non Deficere wrote:Hi Frank

The FOI reply doesn't include information that JCP staff already know.

The member of staff will have used LMS to determine elegibility and it will have appeared that there had been a 37 day break, but after following guidance and checking other systems it was discovered that the person was actually claiming UC during the the 37 days, so infact there was a continuous 24 month unemployment benefit claim.

Hope this makes sense.

Thanks, that was what I was beginning to think. Seems odd to include in guidance the Example 4. Do you therefore consider that when a UC IWSR claim (1st) that ends for 29 days+ means when a new UC IWSR claim (2nd) is started the 24 month LTU clock for mandatory referral to WHP starts on the date the 2nd new UC IWSR claim starts?

Or more simply any claim (JSA or UC-IWSR) that closes and there is a break of 29 days+ before another claim JSAc or UC-IWSR is made, then the again the 24 month LTU clock for mandatory referral to WHP starts on the date the new JSAc or UC IWSR claim starts?

As I understand it and it needs a FOI for clarification, you need to move yourself out of IWSR during your 29day break by earning over £338 in that period, you are then in the "Light touch regime", if I remember correctly if you earn over £650ish monthly, you are out of both categories.

So basically if you got a job for 4 weeks, or did a term of self-employment and declared some earnings, you'd be good to reopen your UC claim and start another 24 months period for not being mandated onto WHP.

If you do a FOI don't mention WHP, you want to ask when a UC claim is closed by the claimant, what is the status of the claimant in relation to UC policy, how does a claimant move out of the IWSR and be completely free of any jurisdiction regarding UC, something like that anyway.

Hi MQ, suggest u do an foi or 2, or ask someone to do them for you. Hv done so many of late a new one and earlier related ones might get blocked on basis of aggregation due to them seeking  similar info.

Details of the precise legislation/regulations and sections thereof that inform this are also needed and can be requested in an foi.

MrFrankZola wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:Hi Frank

The FOI reply doesn't include information that JCP staff already know.

The member of staff will have used LMS to determine elegibility and it will have appeared that there had been a 37 day break, but after following guidance and checking other systems it was discovered that the person was actually claiming UC during the the 37 days, so infact there was a continuous 24 month unemployment benefit claim.

Hope this makes sense.

Thanks, that was what I was beginning to think. Seems odd to include in guidance the Example 4. Do you  therefore consider that when a UC  IWSR  claim (1st) that ends for 29 days+ means when a new UC IWSR claim (2nd) is started the 24 month LTU clock for mandatory referral to WHP starts on the date the 2nd new UC IWSR claim starts?

Or more simply any claim (JSA or UC-IWSR) that closes and there is a break of 29 days+ before another claim JSAc or UC-IWSR is made, then the again the  24 month LTU clock for mandatory referral to WHP starts on the date the new JSAc or UC IWSR claim starts?

Assuming MQ has no linking claim prior to the current UC-IWSR claim a new restart date would be established after a 29 day break.

The only significance of the UC IWSR is, that the person is not working.  Therefore the claimant is potentially eligible for the WHP.

Spotlight on:Work and Health Programme

This Spotlight has been created to help work coaches understand linking rulesfor the Work and Health Programme

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/your_ref_foi_1686_and_linking_pe#incoming-1376194

'Mandatory referral of JSA and Universal Credit claimants to the WHP, including linking periods and eligibility'.

"Linking rules do not apply for periods of Universal Credit claims. "

"Linking rules are decided at a strategic level and therefore does not have
associated legislation. "

FOI reply (internal review)
20/6/19
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/571296/response/1386353/attach/html/2/WDTK%20Review%20Template%20IR18602.pdf.html

I've had a break of 30 days now between claims and had my first new claim appointment today so we'll see if soon they try to get me on the WHP.

I did have trouble with the work roach though, they are trying to get me to use the UC journal to record work search, my previous work roach just let me bring a word document in on my phone to show them.

From what I've read they can not force you to use the journal, I have not signed the claimant commitment because of this so I could go do research/get advice, I am seriously considering putting in a complaint about the work roach misleading me and threatening to close my claim if I don't sign the claimant commitment, I have 7 days to comply she said.

They were also adding frequency to the tasks in the CC, check facebook x3 times a week, check indeed 5x a week etc, this is all designed and set up to enable them to sanction you if you put down in the work search you only looked on facebook x2 instead of x3. I'm pretty sure they can't add frequency like this, this work roach was a total bitch I tell you.

MightyQunit wrote:I've had a break of 30 days now between claims and had my first new claim appointment today so we'll see if soon they try to get me on the WHP.

Long Term Unemployed Participants
12. Participants will be deemed to be Long Term Unemployed when they reach the following point in their benefit claim:
•   JSA  Participants at 24 months including linking periods;
•   UC Participants who start in the Intensive Work Search Regime (IWSR) and are in the IWSR when they reach 24 months discounting change of circumstances within the 24 month period; and
•   Participants migrated to Universal Credit Full Service (UCFS) from legacy benefits will be considered when their time on legacy benefits including linking rules and  their time in the IWSR totals 24 months.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/678133/whp-provider-guidance-chapter-2-particpant-identification-eligibility-referral.pdf

There is no linking periods for UC claimants unless they have migrated from old style JSA.

I did have trouble with the work roach though, they are trying to get me to use the UC journal to record work search, my previous work roach just let me bring a word document in on my phone to show them.

From what I've read they can not force you to use the journal, I have not signed the claimant commitment because of this so I could go do research/get advice, I am seriously considering putting in a complaint about the work roach misleading me and threatening to close my claim if I don't sign the claimant commitment, I have 7 days to comply she said.

I have replied to your other post about the UCJ.

They were also adding frequency to the tasks in the CC, check facebook x3 times a week, check indeed 5x a week etc, this is all designed and set up to enable them to sanction you if you put down in the work search you only looked on facebook x2 instead of x3. I'm pretty sure they can't add frequency like this, this work roach was a total bitch I tell you.

That is permissable. It doesn't specify on which days, so you could untake all those actions in one day! Lol

Edit:

The legal perspective...

5.The Appellant duly signed her “Claimant Commitment”, a 5-page (and for the most part standard form) document which began with the positively Stakhanovite statement that “I’ll do everything I can to get paid work, and will receive Universal Credit payments to support me in this. I’ll do all the things my Work Programme provider tells me I must do, as well as the things set out in this Claimant Commitment”. The first page of the Claimant Commitment also summarised in general terms the claimant’s availability for work and her commitment to apply for vacancies which she was told to apply for, etc. The second page declared that “I’ll normally spend 35 hours each week looking and preparing for work”. This reflected the statutory requirement that a claimant take “all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work” as part of the work search requirement under section 17, being for “at least the claimant’s expected number of hours per week” (regulation 95). The default position is that this expectation amounts to 35 hours of such activity a week (regulation 88).

The Upper Tribunal’s analysis

24.The fundamental error of law by the First-tier Tribunal was to proceed on the basis that the 35 hour work search requirement was immutable. It was not.
25.Section 17(1)(a) provides that the “work search requirement” is a requirement that the claimant take “all reasonable action” and “any particular action specified by the Secretary of State”, A failure to comply with the work search requirement may lead to the imposition of a medium-level sanction (regulation 103(1)(a)). Section 25(a) enables regulations to be made as to the circumstances in which a claimant is to be treated as having “complied or not complied with any requirement imposed under this Part”.

In the context of the work search requirement that takes us to regulation 95(1):‘95.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as not having complied with a work search requirement to take all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work in any week unless—(a)either—(i)the time which the claimant spends taking action for the purpose of obtaining paid work is at least the claimant's expected number of hours per week minus any relevant deductions, or (ii)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has taken all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work despite the number of hours that the claimant spends taking such action being lower than the expected number of hours.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a27bd1940f0b659d452009f/CUC_1808_2017-00.pdf

Do you think the actions are unreasonble for your circumstances?

Non Deficere wrote:

The legal perspective...

5.The Appellant duly signed her “Claimant Commitment”, a 5-page (and for the most part standard form) document which began with the positively Stakhanovite statement that “I’ll do everything I can to get paid work, and will receive Universal Credit payments to support me in this. I’ll do all the things my Work Programme provider tells me I must do, as well as the things set out in this Claimant Commitment”. The first page of the Claimant Commitment also summarised in general terms the claimant’s availability for work and her commitment to apply for vacancies which she was told to apply for, etc. The second page declared that “I’ll normally spend 35 hours each week looking and preparing for work”. This reflected the statutory requirement that a claimant take “all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work” as part of the work search requirement under section 17, being for “at least the claimant’s expected number of hours per week” (regulation 95). The default position is that this expectation amounts to 35 hours of such activity a week (regulation 88).

The Upper Tribunal’s analysis

24.The fundamental error of law by the First-tier Tribunal was to proceed on the basis that the 35 hour work search requirement was immutable. It was not.
25.Section 17(1)(a) provides that the “work search requirement” is a requirement that the claimant take “all reasonable action” and “any particular action specified by the Secretary of State”, A failure to comply with the work search requirement may lead to the imposition of a medium-level sanction (regulation 103(1)(a)). Section 25(a) enables regulations to be made as to the circumstances in which a claimant is to be treated as having “complied or not complied with any requirement imposed under this Part”.

In the context of the work search requirement that takes us to regulation 95(1):‘95.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as not having complied with a work search requirement to take all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work in any week unless—(a)either—(i)the time which the claimant spends taking action for the purpose of obtaining paid work is at least the claimant's expected number of hours per week minus any relevant deductions, or (ii)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has taken all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work despite the number of hours that the claimant spends taking such action being lower than the expected number of hours.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a27bd1940f0b659d452009f/CUC_1808_2017-00.pdf

Do you think the actions are unreasonable for your circumstances?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a level unchanging experience when dealing with work coaches and claimant commitments, and not have it depend on personality and whether they are having a bad day or not.

If my previous claimant commitment was ok for one work coach, it should be ok for another

That legal text you quoted, is that saying that 35hrs work search can not always be expected from a claimant?

@MQ

Yes that is right. 35 hours constitutes a guideline for 'most' weeks but where the CC items can be completed in fewer hours, that is acceptable within the reg's AFAIK.

Yes, that is correct.  The best explanation is here:

In the context of the work search requirement that takes us to regulation 95(1):‘95.—(1) A claimant is to be treated as not having complied with a work search requirement to take all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work in any week unless—(a)either—(i)the time which the claimant spends taking action for the purpose of obtaining paid work is at least the claimant's expected number of hours per week minus any relevant deductions, or (ii)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has taken all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work despite the number of hours that the claimant spends taking such action being lower than the expected number of hours.

In regards to reasonable decisions:

Lord Hailsham observed:  

‘Two reasonable persons can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the
same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable.'

I note the W&HP has not been added to your new CC.

Non Deficere wrote:

I note the W&HP has not been added to your new CC.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/435142/response/1056696/attach/html/2/4201%20reply.pdf.html

No it has not been added, and I sent a letter this morning detailing I would lodge an official complaint against the WC if she did not remove the requirement to use the journal for recording work search from my CC, I quoted and provided a link to the FOI frank posted above from October 2017 and they basically shit themselves.

Remember this WC threatened to close my claim if I did not agree to the CC, she tried to get me to agree it there and then but I said I am taking advice on the matter and that is my right.

I've just received an apology via my UC account from a manager, they have assigned my previous work coach to me which is great because they are proper sound, told me I do not have to agree to the CC and I can agree a new one with my previous WC who is now assigned to me.

Back of the net!

Great news!

MightyQunit wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:

I note the W&HP has not been added to your new CC.

No it has not been added, and I sent a letter this morning detailing I would lodge an official complaint against the WC if she did not remove the requirement to use the journal for recording work search from my CC, I quoted and provided a link to the FOI frank posted above from October 2017 and they basically shit themselves.

Remember this WC threatened to close my claim if I did not agree to the CC, she tried to get me to agree it there and then but I said I am taking advice on the matter and that is my right.

I've just received an apology via my UC account from a manager, they have assigned my previous work coach to me which is great because they are proper sound, told me I do not have to agree to the CC and I can agree a new one with my previous WC who is now assigned to me.

Back of the net!

Well done.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/linking_rules_that_are_decided_a#incoming-1386939

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Please disclose the UC and JSA "Linking rules" information you hold on a " strategic level", additionally the "Linking rules" information you hold, in terms of guidance or procedures for DWP and Jobcentre staff use.

References:

"Linking rules do not apply for periods of Universal Credit claims. ...

Linking rules are decided at a strategic level and therefore does not have associated legislation."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

Yours faithfully,

Frank Zola

Linking periods are an administrative decison, the linking rule for the CWPP was 13 weeks i.e. you had to break you claim for 13 weeks to avoid a referral to it.

Not sure why there are no linking rules for UC.

Let's see what happens in MQ's case.

Non Deficere wrote:Long Term Unemployed Participants
12. Participants will be deemed to be Long Term Unemployed when they reach the following point in their benefit claim:
•   JSA  Participants at 24 months including linking periods;
•   UC Participants who start in the Intensive Work Search Regime (IWSR) and are in the IWSR when they reach 24 months discounting change of circumstances within the 24 month period; and
•   Participants migrated to Universal Credit Full Service (UCFS) from legacy benefits will be considered when their time on legacy benefits including linking rules and  their time in the IWSR totals 24 months.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/678133/whp-provider-guidance-chapter-2-particpant-identification-eligibility-referral.pdf

There is no linking periods for UC claimants unless they have migrated from old style JSA.

When you say there are no linking periods for UC, does that mean you can close your claim on a Monday, open a new one on a Tuesday and from Tuesday would be close as a new 24 month period until you can be mandated onto WHP?

Has there been a FOI done for this?

Non Deficere wrote:https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/linking_rules_that_are_decided_a#incoming-1386939

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Please disclose the UC and JSA "Linking rules" information you hold on a " strategic level", additionally the "Linking rules" information you hold, in terms of guidance or procedures for DWP and Jobcentre staff use.

References:

"Linking rules do not apply for periods of Universal Credit claims. ...

Linking rules are decided at a strategic level and therefore does not have associated legislation."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

Yours faithfully,

Frank Zola

Linking periods are an administrative decison, the linking rule for the CWPP was 13 weeks i.e.  you had to break you claim for 13 weeks to avoid a referral to it.

Not sure why there are no linking rules for UC.

Let's see what happens in MQ's case.

ND, What is your opinion on 'linking rules' [unpublished] not existing in legislation and regulations? Do you
know of any tribunal decisions referring to 'linking rules'? Or do you consider that whatever the non statutory or non legislative basis of a DWP "administrative decision", they must be correct, by mere DWP assertion and therefore not open to challenge?

I always find it difficult to accept any opinion about any DWP authority to pursue a specific action that mandates a claimant to do x, unless such an opinion is supported by information that is independent of the person offering the opinion. And when an opinion is correct, that links and details are provided to the independent information, as great believer in the respectful 'trust but verify' approach. As find this enables claimants to make own informed decisions, or pose further informed questions.

To "see what happens in MQ's case" would also require a 'trust but verify' approach, that confirmed independently what happened. One way this could be done, would be for any claimant to ask through a personal DWP data rights request when the expected WHP start date would be and by implication how any break has or has not been taken account of.

MightyQunit wrote:

I did have trouble with the work roach though, they are trying to get me to use the UC journal to record work search, my previous work roach just let me bring a word document in on my phone to show them.

From what I've read they can not force you to use the journal, I have not signed the claimant commitment because of this so I could go do research/get advice, I am seriously considering putting in a complaint about the work roach misleading me and threatening to close my claim if I don't sign the claimant commitment, I have 7 days to comply she said.

They were also adding frequency to the tasks in the CC, check facebook x3 times a week, check indeed 5x a week etc, this is all designed and set up to enable them to sanction you if you put down in the work search you only looked on facebook x2 instead of x3. I'm pretty sure they can't add frequency like this, this work roach was a total bitch I tell you.

I am also being misled by my current roach and she isn't aware of it but I am monitoring her just as much as she is me. And you are correct MightyQunit, the journal is not a mandatory requirement to be used for work search that can be shown in any way the claimant likes as long is readable. I'd also question the frequency as haven't heard or seen anything that. By the way, there is another FOI out there saying its 'not mandatory for any claimants to use ANY social media websites to look for work.'Its just more bullshit ideology being used to bully claimants.


DWP Central Freedom of Information Team

Dear X,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request of 30 October 2017. You asked:
Is it mandatory for claimants to have to use the universal credit journal to record their
job search or can they provide evidence in paper format, i.e. emails of job applications
or replies from employers?

Do I also have to upload a copy of my CV onto the journal? Would a paper copy be
sufficient to show my work coach?

It is not a mandatory requirement for the claimant to provide the required work search
evidence via their journal. The claimant must be able to provide written evidence of
their work search.

It is not mandatory for the claimant to upload their CV onto the journal, the claimant
must however be able to show a completed and up to date CV.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely,
DWP Strategy FoI Team