header-logo header-logo

11 July 2019 / Norman Challis
Issue: 7848 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Universal credit: a sting in the tail?

Both claimants & defendants should be aware of the negative impacts of universal credit, says Norman Challis

  • The introduction of universal credit as a recoverable benefit has a negative impact on compensators and claimants alike, and is ripe for much needed reform.
  • As it stands, there are little or no means to challenge Compensation Recovery Unit certificates containing universal credit.
  • The solution may be by both sides of the industry working together to lobby for a legislative change.

The Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), exists to recover benefits paid to a claimant injured as a result of another’s negligence. The CRU sends the compensator a Certificate of Recoverable Benefits (CRB) which are repayable in the event that compensation is subsequently awarded or paid. In certain circumstances, compensators can offset some, or all, of the recoverable benefits against claimed losses, and even challenge the recoverability of the benefits themselves, excluding general damages which are ringfenced.

Prior to the creation of universal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll