Forum Home → Discussion → Benefits for older people → Thread
Mixed age couple, younger partner no recourse to public funds
Current MAC, elder, eligible partner has reached SRP age and their MAC UC claim continues. Younger partner has no recourse to public funds so the UC award is limited.
Is this the right benefit for them? Is the elder partner able to claim PGC as the only eligible party or must they continue with their MAC UC? (Even with only him having eligibility to claim, the difference between staying on UC and a right to move over to PGC is so significant; if there’s a way to move them i would love to know!)
They can claim pensioner benefits as a single person, and they should not be on UC. Reg 3 of the UC Regs don’t allow the older partner to claim UC as a single person, and Article 7 of the WRA2012 No 31 Commencement Order allows them to claim pensioner benefits as if the younger partner did not exist.
I’d go for full three months’ backdating of SPC and, if they rent, HB on the grounds that there is no entitlement to UC for that period even if it has been incorrectly paid. There simply cannot be any UC entitlement: the only circumstance in which a pensioner can be entitled to UC is as part of a joint claim as a couple - which this isn’t.
See para.16 and 17 of A9/2019 Mixed age couples: further guidance (revised) which covers this situation.
Also to be super picky but worth pointing out, Peter says “they” can claim but it’s only him who is claiming so that doesn’t affect her NRPF condition. The one to watch out for is Council Tax Reduction as more of that can be paid in these situations and CTR does count as a public fund.
Thank you both - will dig a little deeper in this case.
Also to be super picky but worth pointing out, Peter says “they” can claim but it’s only him who is claiming so that doesn’t affect her NRPF condition. The one to watch out for is Council Tax Reduction as more of that can be paid in these situations and CTR does count as a public fund.
I suspect Peter said “they” because the question started by being gender neutral and only revealed that the pension age person was “him” in brackets in the second paragraph.
To add to the super pickiness, Paul says “her NRPF”, but it doesn’t say anywhere explicitly that the person with NRPF is she/her.
That’s what I was doing - I’ve been on Twitter long enough to know that