× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

6 month rule in gateway areas - escaping lobster pot?

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 365

Joined: 17 June 2010

Starting a new thread as this isn’t quite the same query as previous lobster pot cases.

Client in gateway area claimed UC as unemployed single person. Then went into work, UC stopped due to earnings but she’s been told she is subject to 6 month rule. However, whilst in work she says (I’m still not sure about this & need to double check the facts) that she successfully claimed HB, which shouldn’t have happened if she was treated as a ‘UC claimant’ due to the 6 month rule.

She is now pregnant, and nearly due to start ML. She will get MA (but not SMP), and her baby is due shortly after her ML starts. I’m concerned about her claim for tax credits as she is will still be within the 6 months when the baby arrives.

I’ve checked the relevant law in WRA 2012 commencement order no 9 Art3(3)(e), the UC(TP) regs, reg 6 and the (UC)C&P regs, reg 6 and as far as I can see, she should be told to go back on UC if she claims tax credits (and should have been told this by the LA too). That’s because it was the earnings that meant she came off UC before, no other reason - the fact she no longer meets the gateway conditions isn’t relevant to her being a ‘UC claimant’, someone who doesn’t have to make a claim once their earnings stop or decrease (MA of course isn’t earnings for UC).

Also checked ADM which doesn’t really add anything to that.

However, I also think that if she is told to go back to UC, she can then stop her UC claim and claim legacy benefits which are worth more to her (particular as she is planning to go back to work after maternity leave). Just like anyone else in a gateway area who ceases to meet gateway conditions. I am concerned about the HB claim though, and don’t want to mess that up if at all possible (so would rather avoid her going back to UC at all!) It’s also possible of course that tax credits might miss the fact she’s caught by the 6 month rule. It still doesn’t explain why HB missed it, unless of course she was already pregnant when she claimed HB….which she may have been.

Any views?

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 365

Joined: 17 June 2010

So it seems this client was overpaid HB even though she told them everything, including that she’d been on UC and it had ended only because of her earnings, two or three months beforehand. All they took in was that she didn’t meet gateway conditions, not that this didn’t matter as she was still a ‘UC claimant’ due to the 6 month rule.

Looks like an official error so hopefully won’t have to repay. Then will get UC reinstated without a claim (which at least the UC helpline seem to accept!), then hopefully, stop it so that she can claim tax credits for her baby, HB again, as worth much more to her.

If anyone can see a reason why this wouldn’t work please let me know.