Forum Home → Discussion → Children and childcare → Thread
UC Child Care costs - 2 or more children amount query
Hello,
I am just trying to double check what qualifies someone to be entitled to the 2 or more children amount of childcare costs.
Basically if someone has 2 children;
-One that needs childcare
-One in secondary school, and doesn’t need any afterschool child minding
Does this parent qualify for the 2 or more children amount (due to the fact they have more than 2 children) or can they only get the 1 child amount (because they only have 1 child that they need childcare for)?
If it does only give them the lower amount, would a good way around this, be to just get their older child to go to an after school child minder one day a week - so then they would have 2 children receiving childcare and so they could get the higher maximum amount?
Thanks for the help in advance!
They would only get the maximum amount for one child, as it depends on the number of children they are incurring childcare costs for.
The possible problem with your idea is that the childcare for the older child may be considered excessive, in which case you will be back to the one child maximum.
Even if they initially accept it, which they probably will, they could always look into it later and disallow it retroactively for being excessive (I’ve recently seen a case of excessive childcare where they have gone back for 3 years!). Although you may then have a good argument that DWP should write off the debt, as if they would have made the decision earlier, the claimant would have stopped using as much childcare.
Hi Charles,
Thanks for confirmation.
Also really handy to know that they can consider some Child Care excessive!
They would only get the maximum amount for one child, as it depends on the number of children they are incurring childcare costs for.
The possible problem with your idea is that the childcare for the older child may be considered excessive, in which case you will be back to the one child maximum.
Even if they initially accept it, which they probably will, they could always look into it later and disallow it retroactively for being excessive (I’ve recently seen a case of excessive childcare where they have gone back for 3 years!). Although you may then have a good argument that DWP should write off the debt, as if they would have made the decision earlier, the claimant would have stopped using as much childcare.
Aside from that possibility, the claimant also needs to evidence that the childcare costs were actually being incurred/being paid. It’s 85% of the costs a person actually pays, up to the limit of £950.92 for one kid or £1630.15 for two. So a claimant will always have to contribute a minimum of 15% of the childcare costs themselves - it’s not possible to make money out of the scheme.
I’m rather surprised at the suggestion in the o/p that it might be possible to assist a client with a bit of a fiddle so they do receive more than their entitlement. It might be necessary to register to post here, but the forums are public and those who you might expect to want to have a snoop most certainly do…..
Aside from that possibility, the claimant also needs to evidence that the childcare costs were actually being incurred/being paid. It’s 85% of the costs a person actually pays, up to the limit of £950.92 for one kid or £1630.15 for two. So a claimant will always have to contribute a minimum of 15% of the childcare costs themselves - it’s not possible to make money out of the scheme.
I’m rather surprised at the suggestion in the o/p that it might be possible to assist a client with a bit of a fiddle so they do receive more than their entitlement. It might be necessary to register to post here, but the forums are public and those who you might expect to want to have a snoop most certainly do…..
I don’t think it is as bad as you are suggesting.
No suggestion is being made to falsify childcare costs, rather the idea is to actually send the older child to childcare for 1 hour a week, and of course pay for it. This would allow access to the higher maximum of childcare, so the claimant is better off.
Whether it is wrong to send to childcare which is not actually needed to enable the claimant to work is perhaps an issue. But the Regs do put the onus on the SoS to decide that - see Reg 34(2)(a). Although, see also Reg 33(1)(b)(i).
There could even be an argument that as the 1 hour childcare for the older child “unlocks” access to the higher limit (which really is necessary for the younger child), then perhaps that 1 hour IS actually necessary to enable the claimant to work!
I’m rather surprised at the suggestion in the o/p that it might be possible to assist a client with a bit of a fiddle so they do receive more than their entitlement. It might be necessary to register to post here, but the forums are public and those who you might expect to want to have a snoop most certainly do…..
I don’t think it’s necessary to view it in that light. Very many claimants will engage in all sorts of behaviour to try to improve their financial situation, and this fairly often actually results in lower entitlements for various reasons that is generally far too complicated for a layperson to grasp. The rules that allow for double SDP and carer premiums for disabled couples springs to mind.
Who’s to say that this person didn’t actually need the extra childcare, but avoided it because they were worried about cost limits, and so on?
Public services aren’t the only non-members that view these forums, they are also regularly viewed by members of the public and various groups. WROs sadly have a reputation in some groups of deliberately being obtuse (or simply incompetent), because we dodge around issues. Open discussions alleviates this imho.
I think my colleague’s question was intended to clarify the rules to ensure we are maximising clients’ incomes within those rules - certainly not trying to assist in a ‘fiddle’ or take any kind of inappropriate advantage of the system!
I’m not sure how childcare costs vary across the country but locally it’s certainly possible for childcare for e.g. a 1-2 year old to be much, much higher than the amount allowable for 2 children meaning employment will lead to a significant drop in disposable income, even in a benefit cap case for instance.
OK, hands up, misunderstood/misread the o/p and the intention behind it, so apologies.