× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

What kind of income?

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Client receives 120pw from her 2 adult daughters in return for providing childcare for her grandchildren. This income is currently being treated as ‘miscellaneous’ with no disregards.

Should client at least be getting an earnings disregard on this money? Could she even argue that these are voluntary payments that should be completely disregarded?

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

I cannot see how these can be classed as voluntary payments - those are defined as payments made for which the person making the payment gets nothing back in return, which is certainly not the case here (assuming the daughters would not carry on giving her the £120 p/w if she said she was no longer going to look after the grandchildren?).

And whilst there are earnings disregards for employed and self-employed persons, there aren’t income disregards. If the financial arrangement is a purely informal, family one (i.e. there is no employee/employer relationship and your client is not carrying out a self-employed business as a childminder) then I think it’s right that the money is simply treated as income - without disregards.

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

If your client was genuinely self-employed, she should benefit from the generous disregard rules for childminders, that allow two thirds of the earnings to be disregarded in lieu of expenses (HB reg 38(9), there is an equivalent for PC age).

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

That’s true.

But it would require that she was actually engaged in the business of childminding (i.e. held herself out as a childminder, advertised her services and was prepared to take on children of members of the public and not just of immediate family members) which would, at least in practice, I think, mean that she would need to be OFSTED registered.