- Posts: 9
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP, UC and DLA Queries and Results
- Council strip 1:1 from 18 YO QYP-can’t access education-penalised by UC ?
× Members
Council strip 1:1 from 18 YO QYP-can’t access education-penalised by UC ?
- LondonLady
- Topic Author
- Away
Less More
4 hours 8 minutes ago #312166 by LondonLady
Council strip 1:1 from 18 YO QYP-can’t access education-penalised by UC ? was created by LondonLady
Good morning,
I’m really hoping someone with detailed Universal Credit / decision-maker or welfare rights experience might be able to help me, as I’m extremely worried about my position and struggling to find clear guidance.
I have an 18-year-old son (turning 19 in May 26) with an EHCP and significant disabilities who is on my claim as a “qualifying young person”. He requires 1:1 support to access education and receives enhanced rate PIP for both daily living and mobility. He was due to start a named college placement in September, but the local anthority abruptly withdrew the 1:1 support against professional advice.
Educational Psychologists and SaLT provided written evidence stating clearly that my son cannot access or cope with college without 1:1 support, and two Educational Psychologists wrote formally to the council raising safeguarding concerns about the proposal for him to attend full-time college without that support. Despite this, the LA finalised the EHCP in late August without reinstating the support. I am now in appeal to the SEND Tribunal regarding suitability of provision.
As a result of the LA’s decision, my son has been prevented from accessing any education since September. This was not a choice, not disengagement, and not refusal. I spent the autumn trying to secure interim or reduced provision (even part-time hours), but everything was refused. Attendance without 1:1 support was not possible or safe.
I understand that SEND law and DWP/UC law are technically separate, and people say there is “no automatic connection” between them. I accept that , but at the same time, I genuinely cannot understand how the reason a disabled young person is not in education can be completely irrelevant. If I had simply not enrolled him, or if he had refused to attend, that would obviously be different. But in this case he has been actively prevented from accessing education due to disability-related needs and a local authority failure, which is now being legally challenged.
Everything I can find about Universal Credit appears very black-and-white: “in education or not in education”, with NO apparent consideration whatsoever of why education could not take place. That feels deeply wrong where a disabled young person is excluded from education through no fault of their own, and due to a local authority acting illegally .
I am now extremely worried about:
• the risk of a very large backdated overpayment (potentially many thousand pounds)
• the possibility of losing over £1,000 per month going forward
• being financially penalised for a local authority’s unlawful decision, which is outside my control and currently before the SEND Tribunal
This isn’t just theoretical, this money is what supports my son day-to-day, and I’m genuinely frightened about how we would cope if it were suddenly removed or reclaimed.
From my perspective, this feels like an enforced interruption to education, not my son “leaving” education. At the time, I reasonably believed the situation was temporary and that provision would be put in place once the LA complied with its duties.
I’m specifically looking for guidance on:
• how UC decision makers are meant to deal with situations where education is inaccessible due to LA failure
• whether causation and reasoning are ever considered, or only enrolment status
• how delayed reporting is viewed where the situation was unresolved and actively being challenged
• whether there is any relevant DMG guidance or case law involving disabled young people unable to attend education due to illness or lack of support
• how long a young person in this situation can remain on a parent’s UC claim, and how to address the current position
I’m not looking for advice simply to “open a claim for him” please,I do understand that may be relevant later. But my concern right now is how this period is treated, whether a large overpayment can arise in these circumstances, and how I should properly address this with Universal Credit.
Any informed insight would be hugely appreciated, as I feel completely stuck and very anxious about the financial consequences of something that is entirely outside our control.
Thank you so much in advance
I’m really hoping someone with detailed Universal Credit / decision-maker or welfare rights experience might be able to help me, as I’m extremely worried about my position and struggling to find clear guidance.
I have an 18-year-old son (turning 19 in May 26) with an EHCP and significant disabilities who is on my claim as a “qualifying young person”. He requires 1:1 support to access education and receives enhanced rate PIP for both daily living and mobility. He was due to start a named college placement in September, but the local anthority abruptly withdrew the 1:1 support against professional advice.
Educational Psychologists and SaLT provided written evidence stating clearly that my son cannot access or cope with college without 1:1 support, and two Educational Psychologists wrote formally to the council raising safeguarding concerns about the proposal for him to attend full-time college without that support. Despite this, the LA finalised the EHCP in late August without reinstating the support. I am now in appeal to the SEND Tribunal regarding suitability of provision.
As a result of the LA’s decision, my son has been prevented from accessing any education since September. This was not a choice, not disengagement, and not refusal. I spent the autumn trying to secure interim or reduced provision (even part-time hours), but everything was refused. Attendance without 1:1 support was not possible or safe.
I understand that SEND law and DWP/UC law are technically separate, and people say there is “no automatic connection” between them. I accept that , but at the same time, I genuinely cannot understand how the reason a disabled young person is not in education can be completely irrelevant. If I had simply not enrolled him, or if he had refused to attend, that would obviously be different. But in this case he has been actively prevented from accessing education due to disability-related needs and a local authority failure, which is now being legally challenged.
Everything I can find about Universal Credit appears very black-and-white: “in education or not in education”, with NO apparent consideration whatsoever of why education could not take place. That feels deeply wrong where a disabled young person is excluded from education through no fault of their own, and due to a local authority acting illegally .
I am now extremely worried about:
• the risk of a very large backdated overpayment (potentially many thousand pounds)
• the possibility of losing over £1,000 per month going forward
• being financially penalised for a local authority’s unlawful decision, which is outside my control and currently before the SEND Tribunal
This isn’t just theoretical, this money is what supports my son day-to-day, and I’m genuinely frightened about how we would cope if it were suddenly removed or reclaimed.
From my perspective, this feels like an enforced interruption to education, not my son “leaving” education. At the time, I reasonably believed the situation was temporary and that provision would be put in place once the LA complied with its duties.
I’m specifically looking for guidance on:
• how UC decision makers are meant to deal with situations where education is inaccessible due to LA failure
• whether causation and reasoning are ever considered, or only enrolment status
• how delayed reporting is viewed where the situation was unresolved and actively being challenged
• whether there is any relevant DMG guidance or case law involving disabled young people unable to attend education due to illness or lack of support
• how long a young person in this situation can remain on a parent’s UC claim, and how to address the current position
I’m not looking for advice simply to “open a claim for him” please,I do understand that may be relevant later. But my concern right now is how this period is treated, whether a large overpayment can arise in these circumstances, and how I should properly address this with Universal Credit.
Any informed insight would be hugely appreciated, as I feel completely stuck and very anxious about the financial consequences of something that is entirely outside our control.
Thank you so much in advance
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- David
- Away
Less More
- Posts: 3306
3 hours 1 minute ago #312168 by David
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by David on topic Council strip 1:1 from 18 YO QYP-can’t access education-penalised by UC ?
Hi LondonLady
Advice of this complexity is outside the remit of a discussion forum such as BenefitsandWork. However as a member of Rightsnet I am able to signpost you to professional advisers who are highly regarded but would charge fees.
Unfortunately all I am able to do is to quote the CPAG guidance regarding a QYP for UC -
"Qualifying young person
A parent can claim benefits for a ‘qualifying young person’. This is a term used in the benefits system that refers to someone aged 16 to 19 who is:
doing a full-time course of further education (FE) (non-advanced) or an approved training course; and
under 19; or
aged 19 and accepted on, enrolled on or started the course when they were under 19.
For UC the latest date you can claim for a young person is 31 August after the young person’s 19th birthday. For child benefit the latest date you can claim for a young person is the day before they turn 20.
FE is study below the level of HNC, and includes NQ National 4 & 5s, NQ Highers and Advanced Highers, SVQ up to level 3 and National Certificates (NCs).
In order to be full-time, the course must be more than 12 hours a week during term time. In counting the 12 hours, include classes and supervised study, but do not include meal breaks or unsupervised study at home or at college. If a young person is doing fewer hours because of a disability, child benefit can continue to be paid.
Young people on approved training courses are treated as being qualifying young people. This applies if they are on training provided under certain Acts, which is approved by the Secretary of State, such as a 'No One Left Behind' course (as long as the training is not provided by a contract of employment).
You may be able to get benefit for young people who are home-schooled. Seek advice if this applies."
David
Advice of this complexity is outside the remit of a discussion forum such as BenefitsandWork. However as a member of Rightsnet I am able to signpost you to professional advisers who are highly regarded but would charge fees.
Unfortunately all I am able to do is to quote the CPAG guidance regarding a QYP for UC -
"Qualifying young person
A parent can claim benefits for a ‘qualifying young person’. This is a term used in the benefits system that refers to someone aged 16 to 19 who is:
doing a full-time course of further education (FE) (non-advanced) or an approved training course; and
under 19; or
aged 19 and accepted on, enrolled on or started the course when they were under 19.
For UC the latest date you can claim for a young person is 31 August after the young person’s 19th birthday. For child benefit the latest date you can claim for a young person is the day before they turn 20.
FE is study below the level of HNC, and includes NQ National 4 & 5s, NQ Highers and Advanced Highers, SVQ up to level 3 and National Certificates (NCs).
In order to be full-time, the course must be more than 12 hours a week during term time. In counting the 12 hours, include classes and supervised study, but do not include meal breaks or unsupervised study at home or at college. If a young person is doing fewer hours because of a disability, child benefit can continue to be paid.
Young people on approved training courses are treated as being qualifying young people. This applies if they are on training provided under certain Acts, which is approved by the Secretary of State, such as a 'No One Left Behind' course (as long as the training is not provided by a contract of employment).
You may be able to get benefit for young people who are home-schooled. Seek advice if this applies."
David
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: tommy.clifton
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, latetrain, BIS, Catherine12345, Chris, David, Keely, Jasmine