We are continually coming across cases of pensioner couples who are both receiving AA, and as a consequence are both receiving the SDP premium as part of their Guaranteed pension credit. The award of the SDP is of course dependent upon no one else claiming Carers Allowance.

However, neither of them are receiving the carer's premium. Pension Service however insist that we have to claim Carers Allowance in order to get the decision that they have the underlying entitlement but cannot actually receive the benefit, before they will award the double Carer's premium.

Now, this to us is illogical - if they already get the double SD Premium then this is evidence surely that PS had already verified that no one was claiming Carers Allowance for either of them at the time of the award? If someone did claim after the award, CA would have notified PS anyway, or one would think so.

Is this a local Office problem, or can I assume that everyone else has to jump through the same pointless administrative hurdle?.

As far as I know, everyone has to go through the process of claiming CA in order to get an underlying entitlement established.

To the (very limited) extent that I'd thought about it at all previously, I'd just assumed that this was necessary for the CA unit to satisfy themselves that the claimant met all the other conditions for CA - residence, not subject to immigration control, not in f-t work, etc - and that an overlapping benefit was the *only* reason for non-payment.

But now you mention it it does seem an unnecessary faff for pensioners especially.

But thinking a little bit more - what if the claimant - or one of them in a couple - has little or no entitlement to RP? If so, a claim for CA would result in an award, which would screw up the SDP. So on balance is it a subject best left for advisers to identify those who should go this route, rather than try for some blanket approach?

Another point to mention is that each of the couple must actually be 'caring' in some way. This can, of course, include supervision if appropriate.

I recently found an elderly couple entitled to double SDP; I completed a CA claim pack for the man, who was physically disabled but mentally alert - he monitored his wife all day and responded to her needs where he could or summoned help if necessary. She had advanced dementia as well as physical problems, so needed continual supervision, etc. I couldn't in all honesty do a CA claim for the wife, though, because she could neither help with personal care nor supervise - she was no longer able to comprehend this sort of problem and was too disabled to do anything, even under instruction.

Jim

I completely agree that there has to be some grounds for a claim for CA even if it is underlying only, you are after all asking your client to sign a statement that they are fulfilling the 35 hour rule. Plus it is important to check the rate of RP in payment to each person to ensure that no CA at all is due, I have come across cases where the spouse's RP is slightly less than the CA rate and a small amount would be payable thus precluding the SDP for the partner.

A couple of months ago I dealt with a couple who were both awarded AA and the local Pension Service had also visited re their PC, the CLM actually rang me to ensure that CA claims for each of them were done as she had been planning to revisit to do them. However, I couldn't justify a claim for the man because he was very old, frail and confused and was not able to help his wife in any way, the CLM was planning on doing a claim despite this so it would appear to be a case of going from the sublime to the ridiculous given the difficulty we, as advisers, have getting claims paid appropriately sometimes!

Which highlights some of the the PS local service officer's preoccupation with Stats - they are under pressure to get as many claims completed as possible with maximum benefits to be subsequently used on national stats reports.

Which leads me to wonder what would happen to those people encouraged by the local PS to make incorrect claims for CA if the DWP decided that another 'Benefits Integrity Project' should take place? Would we have overpayments/recoveries galore or would the result just contribute to another set of stats - those relating to fraud and overpayments!

We've had similar 'debates' with PS staff here over claims and even fellow WR advisers it has to be said.

In respect of the earlier thread though there would also need to be some checking that another person has not already claimed the underlying entitlement to Carers Allowance. We've had many cases where a family member claiming Incap has claimed the UE for the carers premium.

Very interesting thread. I am constantly struggling with how to promote uptake of carer premium by pensioner couples whilst avoiding the potential for CA claims which may then revoke the SDP award!

It shows how simplistic the recent DWP campaign on CA is as there seems to be very little publicity on carers premium (probably because it is impossible to explain clearly to Joe Public!)

See discussion on pp202-203 of Shelter Guide to HB etc 05-06 (Zebedee) and ref to CIS/367/2003 - suggests no need for a CA claim to establish CP entitlement! Any thoughts?

Anyone got a copy of CIS/367/2003.
My gut says theres no way of asking for the carers premium in the absence of a claim for CA. Thats because I have a dim and failing memory(over 50) that a commissioner somewhere down the line decided entitlement could only be determined by having made a claim. The only instance I've seen where that doesn't seem to be the case is where past period of ICB can be counted towards the 39 week waiting period for mortgage interest.

A copy of CIS/367/2003 is available in the cmmrs decisions on rightsnet area of swopshop.

Boing!boing! I think Zebedee has a rusty spring because I can't see how this Commissioners decision supports carers premium award without CA application- but I'm ready to eat my words if anyone can show me otherwise.

Cheers for the link Ken

looking at the PC/IS/HB/CTB regs the wording is almost identical for a carers premium, the claimant has to have an entitlement to carers allowance.

a claim is necessary to determine entitlement