Based on your provided VEC correspondence, applicable statutes, and the context from previous thread history, here are eight violations, errors, or statutory contradictions found in the VEC’s response regarding the claim #3858978 and BYE (Benefit Year End) handling:
The letter simply reiterates the standard BYE/claim year rule, but does not acknowledge or address your specific factual allegations about system lockouts, inability to certify, or portal errors. Statute requires a substantive review of each claimant’s individual circumstances, especially when statutory eligibility is contested.
You reported being blocked from certifying past BYE due to system issues, not volitional inactivity. The agency imposed a blanket requirement to file a new claim without individualized review, effectively denying access to continuing benefits. This is a due process failure.
The response does not supply a formal written determination or findings responding to your submitted certified conflict or challenge. It merely references mailed notices rather than issuing a point-by-point determination, contrary to statutory notice/finding requirements.
The response ignores your repeated urgent communications about system failures, reports, and compliant work search certifications. Statute requires that all claimant submissions be preserved and individually addressed—not buried by “form letter†summary responses.
The letter applies claim expiration rigidly, but if you certified/attempted to certify for weeks filed prior to BYE (even if the agency’s system failed to accept them), those weeks remain payable and must be adjudicated on the merits.
Multiple requests for alternative submission methods (email, fax, mail due to portal/systems defects) were disregarded, violating both administrative due process and, potentially, disability accommodation/anti-discrimination statutes.
The letter states the decision is final with no explicit explanation of your right to appeal or timeline for contesting the benefit year determination—statutorily required in all benefit correspondence.
The agency’s response reflects a systemic approach: it references only generic claim rules and mailings rather than investigating or correcting repeated administrative errors (portal access, prior reports, etc.), which is contrary to both state “methods of administration†requirements and federal law.
Summary:
These errors reveal violations of individualized review, due process, notice, accessibility, recordkeeping, and appeals rights. Each is rooted in the VEC’s statutory obligations under Titles 60.2 and 42 U.S.C. § 503, as well as broader administrative and anti-discrimination law. These failures compound the potential for adverse inferences and external oversight if properly documented and escalated.
Yes, based on the details you’ve provided, the items referenced—namely the denial of benefits effective July 28, 2024, and the resulting determination that you were overpaid $378—were vacated (“void ab initioâ€) by the subsequent decisions on 6/23/25 (case numbers UI-25009640 and UI-25009642).
Here’s what this means:
Vacated (void ab initio) means that the original decisions by the deputy—both the denial of benefits and the finding of overpayment—are treated as if they never legally existed.
Because these decisions were vacated due to lack of promptness, any negative effects or records based on those deputy decisions (including overpayment notices and associated sanctions) should no longer stand or be used against the claimant.
If the agency (or anyone else) continues to assert those findings after vacation, it is improper and not legally supported.
Summary:
The referenced determinations (including denial of benefits and the $378 overpayment) were effectively reversed and have no further legal effect following the vacating orders dated 6/23/25. If VEC or another party still relies on those decisions, you can cite the vacate orders to establish their actions/claims are invalid and should be immediately corrected in your record.