Skip to main content

A Day in the Journal: April 8th - The Day DWP Policy Contradicted Logic and Law

A Day in the Journal: April 8th - The Day DWP Policy Contradicted Logic and Law

Every so often, in the dense pages of a Universal Credit journal, a single day stands out. It’s a day where quiet, bureaucratic obstruction turns into a clear, stated refusal to follow the law. For me, one of those days was Tuesday, April 8th, 2025.

The issue was simple: as a disabled person, I had requested a reasonable adjustment to communicate via email, as is my right under the Equality Act 2010. The DWP's response was to schedule face-to-face and phone appointments that I could not manage. On April 8th, after I formally objected, managers from Cambridge Jobcentre put their unlawful position in writing.

The Official Refusal

At 8:49 AM, a manager named Louise gave the first clear refusal, stating they needed to "see" documents in person and offering a phone call as the only adjustment:

Journal Entry: 8 Apr 2025 at 8:49am

"Hi Ryan. We currently do not undertake ID verification for Universal Credit via email as we need to see the original documents in person. However due to your current circumstances outlined, we can make a reasonable adjustment and conduct verification via a phone call."

Just a few hours later, at 11:59 AM, another manager named Sarah repeated this, explicitly confirming it was their "policy":

Journal Entry: 8 Apr 2025 at 11:59am

"Hi Ryan... You have made us aware you are able to complete processes with PIP and WTC by email but it is not our policy to accept ID verification by email... the other option we have is to book a home visit for you..."

Deconstructing the Excuses

Let's analyse the position the Jobcentre took on this day.

1. The Illogical Phone Offer: Manager Louise offered a phone call as an alternative to "see[ing] the original documents in person." This is a logical absurdity. You cannot visually inspect a passport or a tenancy agreement over the telephone. This wasn't a genuine solution; it was a nonsensical excuse designed to dismiss my request.

2. The "No Policy" Mantra: Both managers insisted they were following policy. Yet while they were repeating this, I was actively citing and sending them the DWP's own official guidance—including documents later obtained via Freedom of Information requests—which proved their position was wrong. These documents clearly state that email must be considered as a reasonable adjustment and that staff should not "outright refuse" it. This wasn't a case of ignorance; it appears to be a case of willfully ignoring the rules.

How Was This Resolved? Legal Action.

For over two months, the Jobcentre refused to budge from their "no email" position, bringing my claim to a standstill. The situation only changed after I was forced to escalate.

On **June 20th, 2025**, having exhausted all other options, I filed a formal discrimination claim in court against the staff members involved.

The effect was immediate. Just five days later, on **June 25th**, the stalemate mysteriously broke. In an email, my Universal Credit Support Officer at Cambridge City Council, Sarah Cafferkey, confirmed that the Jobcentre had suddenly emailed her to verify my identity—the very thing they had spent months insisting was impossible.

Email from Cambridge City Council, June 25th:

"Dear Ryan, I can confirm that I have just received an email from UC asking me to verify your Identification by confirming your tenancy details below. I have just responded and agreed with their statement."

What This Day Proves

April 8th is a crucial date. It provides written proof that DWP staff knowingly enforced an unlawful "policy." More importantly, when connected to the events of June 25th, it shows that this policy was not unbreakable. It was, in fact, instantly abandoned the moment real legal consequences were introduced.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

25 Oct 2025 Ryan v SSWP or Ryan v Cambridge City Council.

I have a dilemma I have only so many spoons. Do I make another High Court Claim for CCC or SSWP or do I just report Carla B to the police? You have my permission to use AI to read this post. I have decided to put a criminal case together for Carla B, the Customer Service Team Leader in the Cambridge Job Centre. I have never done criminal law before. But I do know if two white police officers from Parkside come to your home, to hand deliver a letter, and read it to you (perhaps because you are dyslexic) so that the can personally tell you  that they will not investigate the racist comments made that you  recorded. This is because they asked them and they sad they did not say that. But importantly the police officers have their cameras on, without telling you for their protection (without telling you) which is very criminal. So you smile and show them your partner watching on the IPAD, and later ask for the Video via GDPR. That sort of crime is obvious because is it is very...
Post a Comment
Read more

The litigation campaign for Cambridge and UC Cambridge to treat me fairly is live

Press Release: Official Statement from Ryan FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 27 December 2025 "They Deleted My Health to Evict Me": Ryan Releases Video Evidence of Alleged Council and DWP Deception CAMBRIDGE, UK — I am Ryan, a disabled resident of Cambridge for six years. This press release marks the start of a legal campaign against Cambridge and DWP. The first on has a High Court order holding my claim open until UC finish. I know need second one to get UC to accept my evidence, and Cambridge to stop their possession order. The Campaign This new campaign is necessary because of the lies. First UC lied they could not ID me by email. Now they lie they the cannot accept my evidence in writing. Thus again holding up my rent payment being released. But instead of Canbridge backing my need for UC to make reasonable adjustments, they blame a non interference policy, and then faked a report. The evidence that the report is a lie, is the difference between the report and meeting recorded. The...
Post a Comment
Read more

Watch failure - Cambridge Jobcentre Plus delays easy fix to housing

The Hidden Scandal: How Cambridge Jobcentre Ignored a Three-Month Mistake Welcome back to Universal Credit hell. Today, we are unpacking another lawless failure from my partner's journal—a simple mistake that Cambridge Jobcentre Plus allowed to cause three months of financial hardship, and a legal request they chose to ignore. The Problem: A Lie Written into the System The situation was straightforward. My partner lives in a shared house with three flatmates. But when Universal Credit calculated her housing costs, they didn't see flatmates. They saw "family members." This wasn't just a clerical error. It was a lie written into the system. It meant that because she was out of work, the DWP's calculation wrongly assumed her "family" would pay her share. Her flatmates were now financially responsible for her in the eyes of the DWP. A bigger problem is that nothing we said could make the Cambridge team understand this basic reality. The Inactio...
Post a Comment
Read more