× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Income support, JSA and tax credits  →  Thread

Exhausting 26 weeks on IS as carer of PIP claimant - 8 week run on?

GWRS adviser
forum member

Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London

Send message

Total Posts: 211

Joined: 8 August 2012

I’ve just had a case for a couple where the husband claimed PIP some time ago and the wife has been receiving Income Support as the carer of someone who has made a claim for PIP.

Their IS is stopping either today or tomorrow because the couple have been on the benefit for 26 weeks.

The client has made a complaint to ATOS to try to speed along the assessment. 

I escalated the case with the BDC and feel that they should pay IS for a further 8 week runon period - see schedule 1B of IS regs, paragraphs 4&5 (para 5 relates to the runon period).

The BDC are not accepting this pointing to 1) DM’s Guidance (I had a look and couldn’t see much here - feel they should be using regs anyway) 2) saying runon only applies to end of caring and that this carer is still providing care - I argued that it relates to the end of entitlement under para 4 (however that came about) 3) I have a suspicion that they just don’t want to reopen it as they have already cancelled the claim.

I’ve asked that the DM take a look at the regs and mentioned that the client will go for MR adn may involve their MP if decision stays. 

Otherwise I’m at a bit of a loss.  Can anybody come up with any constructive steps I could take here?

I imagine this is something that will only crop up more often as PIP delays stack up.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Doesn’t Schedule IB of the IS regs state that IS is payable for 26 weeks or until the PIP claim is decided (whichever comes first)? I haven’t double checked but that’s my understanding. In which case, IS remains payable to the carer until a decision is made on the PIP claim.

Sorry if I am missing something obvious.

Ken Butler
forum member

Disability Rights UK

Send message

Total Posts: 231

Joined: 16 June 2010

Hi Owen,

You’re absolutely right about Schedule 1B paragraph 5.

It simply says “A person to whom paragraph 4 applied ...” is entitled to 8 weeks IS from the date the paragraph ceased to apply to them.

Its quite clear this would include someone who had been receiving IS as a carer for the 26 weeks allowed under paragraph 4(iii) - awaiting a decision on a PIP claim.

If the client has received a decision stopping their IS then I can’t see how a MR would be unsuccessful - although it may not be a quick process in common with a lot a MRs.

Please do send me details of the case you have if you want - in terms of policy we could lobby the DWP to confirm you are correct and to issue DM guidance eon this.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

I take it all back! I see what you mean- 1B allows for IS to be paid until claim is determined or for 26 weeks, whichever date is earlier. I never had a DLA/AA case that took that long to be determined other than ones that went to appeal.

Dear me- this really is going to become a bit of an ssue isn’t it? Even the additional 8 weeks is unlikely to buy carers in this position sufficient time for the disabled person’s PIP claim to be determined on current form.

One to raise with client’s MP as well I think Owen.

Ken Butler
forum member

Disability Rights UK

Send message

Total Posts: 231

Joined: 16 June 2010

Hi,

The DWP has accepted Owen’s point relating to Schedule 1B paragraph 5 of the IS Regs.

This should mean that those carers who are looking after someone still waiting a decision on their PIP claim after 26 weeks will have their income support extended by up to a further 8 weeks.

After issuing internal guidance the DWP has cinfirmed it has now updated the online version of the Decision Makers Guide to this affect - Volume 4 paragraph 20124.