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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll