Are they treating me badly for ID on 'managed' ESA migration to UC?

Thank you, David. I'm sorry for such delay. I have been overwhelmed and could not manage it anymore. But I remembered your advice re: Help to Claim. Spoke to them yesterday. They asked me to make a record on the journal of the '3-way call with UC' and that a message was sent to arrange a biographical call. I have just received a response from the job centre. It says they cannot verify my identity that way. I will copy and paste from their message as it is hard for me to type because I am physically shaking from the anxiety they cause, and I am upset.

"Further to your recent messages and the contact CAB made to our National Telephony Team, we are unable to verify your identification by phone. In accordance with Universal Credit Guidance and policy this does is required to be completed within 1 month and 1 day from the date of the claim (15TH July 2025) and needs to be a face-to-face appointment.
From the start of the claim you indicated that you did not want us to contact you by telephone, at that point I provided you with the option for a Visiting Officer to come to you or for you to come to the Job Centre at a quiet time in a private interview room which you declined, I then suggested a video call, however as your broadband was cancelled this was not an option. You have referenced verifying your ID by biographical method, however the option to complete biographical questions was removed when you indicated that you did not want phone contact with us, this is not something we can put back into place, also the biographical aspect is only part of the verification and you would be expected to come in to complete the process of verification face to face with a standard identification appointment.
It is regrettable that there was confusion with regards to the appointment on the 28th July 2025 and I am sorry the impact this has had on you. We have been focussed on doing all we can to move your Universal Credit claim forward. There is still an opportunity to book an appointment for the Visiting Officer Team."

I have explained already why the above is untrue so won't repeat here. They have not answered any of my questions relating to the UT case I have shared. Help to Claim told me they verify people using this method all the time. It was them who asked UC to send a message requesting it. They seem to say you have to have that AND a visit to the job centre. But I have read online that others have not had to do so. They have not explained why they are ignoring the safeguarding advice after their own referral to social care.

Thank you re: email address for complaint. Unfortunately, I am not able to say which area I am in publicly, it may put be at risk. I don't think they will respond any differently, either. They have made their minds up.

Sorry long message. Very distressed and upset. I cannot tolerate this department with all the harm caused to myself and, of course, so many others.

Sorry, I forgot this. In the complaint response to the MP, (all untruths aside) they stated this: "I can confirm [my name] ESA IR decision has transferred to her UC award and she does not need to attend a further Work Capability Assessment."

That letter was dated 25.09.25. How can they transfer it across if they can't identify me?

Latest updates as this will be final now. Thanks for allowing me to share. I always think sunlight is the best disinfectant. I hope if all this is wrongly happening to me, and others read it and think: "yes, that's what they're doing to me, too" - then they might feel less alone and not allow DWP to blame them for institutional failures and problems as if they are our own character faults.

This is my last message:

I am not going to go through all the errors and falsehoods here, so will leave this brief.

If you "removed the option to complete biographical questions..." then please explain why the complaint response stated, I was offered a re-booking of this appointment after your "mistake" and that was declined. Because there is no record of that.

Others have identified by that biographical option WITHOUT going into a job centre. Countless people have done this online without even the biographical option. I'm being denied both.

Please just answer why it's been recorded the biographical appointment was offered again (and then "declined" which is fundamentally untrue) if it had been "removed"? It does not make sense. Both can't be true.

And this is their response this morning:

Thank you for your message. I’m sorry to hear that you feel there are discrepancies in our explanation. Please be assured that our intention is to support you in completing your Universal Credit claim so that your payments can begin as soon as possible.

"Please could I refer you once again to [job centre manager's name] previous journal message dated 10th October 2025 at 10:31am, could you confirm which of the 4 options would best suit your needs in order to progress your claim. Can I please remind you that the deadline is 24th October 2025 as detailed within the message."

Again, they are ignoring the safeguarding advice with those options. The staff member who has sent this final message before my claim is 'closed' is the *same person* who made the referral and received the advice!! (He doesn't know social services told me and forwarded me the email).

This is my experience. I hope it lessens someone else's anxiety that they are not alone in being treated like this - even though this is a negative story and not a positive outcome. If this has happened to you and you are reading it, I send you strength and solidarity.

Please don't let them blame you for systemic wrongdoings.

Please know this: if they 'close' your claim because they 'don't know who you are' and threaten you that that is the end and there is no appeal. They are legally ill-informed. Please seek advice. The Upper Tribunal has criticised DWP for using the phrase, 'closing claim' as it is unhelpful. But they still use it. It is not a reason to end a claim in and of itself. You can still provide 'identification' should they do this to you. Even weeks after. Providing it is something that existed at the time of their decision to 'close' - and obviously your identity is an example of something that wouldn't have changed - the decision can be remade that you are, in fact, 'identified' and your claim would no longer be 'closed'.

I hope that's helpful to anyone reading. It shouldn't be this way for so many of us. If anyone has any further advice / support, I would be grateful. Or sharing similar experiences?

In solidarity...