header-logo header-logo

Universal credit: a sting in the tail?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll