Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 93
Why scrutiny matters when it
comes to CRU and personal
injury settlements.
by Ashley Sturrock, Partner at Digby Brown.
income replacement bene昀椀ts can be o昀昀set against
loss of earnings or care bene昀椀ts against costs of care.
The purpose of this ultimately is that a claim for
personal injury will put you back in the position you
would have been in had an accident not occurred, and
so an injured party cannot be doubly compensated
for their loss of earnings and also any bene昀椀ts they
received in lieu of their earnings.
Introduction
This article considers the issues relating to an appeal
made on behalf of a pursuer who Digby Brown
represented following a claim for personal injury.
Ever since the combining of several bene昀椀ts into
one unitary bene昀椀t (Universal Credit), the ability
to scrutinise your client’s CRU certi昀椀cate has never
been more important. The result of Universal Credit
is that they have swept into Universal Credit, bene昀椀ts
that were not previously o昀昀setable. The result being
that you may be faced with a large CRU certi昀椀cate
for bene昀椀ts not related to the accident. We want to
ensure that every client receives the compensation
they are entitled to and not be penalised as a result
of the circumstances out with the accident that
determines their bene昀椀t entitlement.
Universal Credit is a single bene昀椀t that replaced
previous individual bene昀椀ts that were easier to
determine whether they were income replacing
bene昀椀ts versus other bene昀椀ts. The result is that
injured parties can now be faced with sizeable
CRU certi昀椀cates where the DWP seeks to recover
Universal Credit which may contain elements
because of how it is calculated, that are not income
replacing bene昀椀ts.
Background
The problem is compounded by the DWP’s refusal
to provide a breakdown of the individual elements
of Universal Credit.
The pursuer was involved in an accident at work
and subsequently received compensation from his
employer following a claim for personal injury. A
large component of the compensation allowed for
loss of earnings sustained by the pursuer.
How do we overcome this?
In the appeal of the CRU certi昀椀cate we undertook
for the pursuer, the pursuer and his partner had
undertaken a joint application for Universal Credit.
We challenged the CRU certi昀椀cate on the basis
that not all of the Universal Credit paid was as a
consequence of his accident.
However, the pursuer and his partner subsequently
claimed Universal Credit following the accident.
The Compensation Recovery Unit thereafter issued
a certi昀椀cate containing a considerable sum of
bene昀椀ts that were recoverable from the pursuer’s
compensation.
Speci昀椀cally, the tribunal had to determine:
The current legal position
ɿ
At present, when a compensator is liable to pay
damages in a personal injury case, they are required
to check with the Department of Work and Pensions
for any recoverable bene昀椀ts.
Whether elements of the Universal Credit were
paid as a result of the pursuer’s accident or for
other reasons.
ɿ
Whether the law allowed for apportionment of
Universal Credit to re昀氀ect di昀昀erent reasons for
payments of the amounts paid.
Section 8 of the Social Security (Recovery of Bene昀椀ts)
Act 1997 provides, in schedule 2, which bene昀椀ts can
be o昀昀set against speci昀椀c heads of claim, for example
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The DWP sought to argue that Universal Credit is a
single, indivisible bene昀椀t and that cannot be broken
down into individual bene昀椀ts.
91
AUGUST 2026
