The three-year study found that while the digital nature of the benefit has some advantages for UC claimants, the way the digital systems have been designed also leads to people being left without money they are entitled to and information they need in order to challenge DWP decisions. In the worst cases claimants are forced into acute hardship because the programming and operation of this digital- by-design benefit does not align with social security legislation. Some claimants are entitled to extra amounts of UC or exemptions from the standard rules of UC because of their particular circumstances (for example if they have a disability or health condition). But the digital claim form doesn’t always ask claimants if they meet any of the conditions for these extra amounts or exemptions. As a result, claimants – who are not experts on the complex UC rules – don’t always get a fair chance to establish their entitlement. In the worst cases, vulnerable people go without extra money or exemptions they should have. CPAG says: “The central finding from this research is that the rule of law has been subtly undermined by the digitalisation of the UK’s main working-age benefit. “Many of the rule of law breaches raised in this research are likely to be unintended consequences of digital design and implementation choices and none are an inevitability of digitalisation. “If the rule of law had been considered at each stage of the design and implementation of UC, these problems for claimants may have been avoided. In particular, the DWP would have prioritised the design and implementation of a fair and effective process for claimants to challenge decisions. “We are particularly concerned that claimants who are entitled to additional elements, exemptions or exceptions from the standard rules in the legislation for their particular circumstances (for example claimants with health conditions or disabilities, carers and care leavers) are more likely to be affected by the issues raised in this research. “This is because the UC system does not reliably capture these aspects of the award calculation, and claimants are missing out on entitlement as a result.” CPAG concludes by making the following ten recommendations for change:
- The UC digital claim process should be updated to ask all relevant questions and fully investigate claimant circumstances and entitlement.
- The appeals notice in UC should be amended to accurately reflect claimants’ appeal rights.
- The payment statement should be updated to provide further information to claimants about how their award has been calculated.
- At a minimum, the DWP should delay freezing online journals for at least one month after closure to allow claimants time to apply for a mandatory reconsideration (the first step in the appeals process in UC).
- The DWP should introduce a ‘request a mandatory reconsideration’ function on the UC journal, to help claimants exercise their appeal rights.
- Payment statements should not be overwritten. Original and amended statements should be made available for comparison.
- The DWP should amend the digital claim process to allow for advance claims.
- The DWP should take action to remove the concept of claim closure from systems, processes and guidance to ensure language is accurate and reflects the legal framework.
- The DWP should conduct a review of the information provided to claimants in decision letters, with the aim of providing more adequate explanations for decisions.
- The DWP should make the source code for the UC digital system publicly available.
The CPAG report, You Reap What You Code Universal credit, digitalisation and the rule of law, is available from cpag.org.uk.