Page 62 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

early development of the system due to issues with governance, their
contractors and a lack of a detailed ‘blueprint’ or targeted operating model.
This led to a ‘reset’ in 2013. It involved a new digital ‘Full Service’ being
designed in-house using agile development practices. This involves testing
166
and iterating services quickly using feedback from users. The NAO has found
that the DWP follows good agile development practice, and it has “allowed
the Department to adjust its plans based on what it learns about what does and
does not work, and to reprioritise activities to incorporate policy and other
167
necessary changes as it develops the system.”
2.79 However, despite this agile development capability, automation has resulted
in errors in decision making and the DWP seems unable, or reluctant, to make
the necessary changes to the computer systems to fix these. This has been a
particular issue in respect of pay dates and assessment periods. The UC
system calculates payments by reference to a calendar month assessment
period. This can cause issues where:

a) Claimants receive their wages towards the end of the month on a variable
day, for example, the ‘last banking day’, last working day or last Friday
of the month, and the assessment period date also falls towards the end of
the month. This can result in two sets of wages being paid in one UC
assessment period; and
b) Claimants are paid on a weekly basis. Claimants who are paid every four
weeks will get two payments of earnings within a single UC assessment
period once a year, claimants who are paid every two weeks will
sometimes get three (instead of two) payments of earnings within a
single UC assessment period and claimants who are paid weekly will
sometimes get five (instead of four) payments of earnings within a single
UC assessment period.

2.80 This can cause significant variation in UC awards and may mean that
claimants fail to qualify for UC at all in the month they receive multiple
payments. In Johnson, a case relating to the circumstances set out in a) above,

166 R. Pope, Universal Credit: Digital Welfare (see n. 56 above) pp. 28-30; NAO, Rolling out Universal
Credit (HC 1123, 2018) para 1.11.
167 NAO, Rolling Out Universal Credit (see n. 166 above) para 1.12

53