Managed migration issues

Here is CPAG’s first quarterly briefing on some of the issues coming out of managed migration: https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/managed-migration-1

We’ll be doing another four of these between now and next summer, and we owe a massive debt of gratitude to advisers who have shared anonymised case studies with us. We can’t produce these briefings without the evidence to back them up so please do get in touch when you start seeing managed migration cases.

Tell us who the client was, how they reacted to the migration notice, and what happened next. Posit in this thread or contact me by email at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

We can also offer a £25 voucher to advisers or claimants who can face a 40-60 minute interview about managed migration. (more here: https://cpag.org.uk/research-managed-migration-universal-credit)

Thanks very much

EDITED TO ADD: if you just want to discuss your case here, and don’t want us to use it in CPAG work, that’s also fine - just say.

Thanks Carri, the issues in the briefing are all very worrying - but it’s also incredibly useful to know about them.

Re MPTL, isn’t part of the problem, for social landlords at least, that it uses the third party deduction system so it’s on a 28 day cycle, and can never be fully aligned with UC til that changes?  I think this is something which has been raised in the past but still isn’t fixed…

I also wondered whether you’ve seen any evidence in the discovery phase of people with HB saying they don’t have housing costs when they claim UC? The question on the online UC claim form now says ‘You definitely have housing costs if you get housing benefit’, or something like that, but many (especially more vulnerable) claimants may not realise they get HB if it goes straight to the landlord….I just had a case like this in natural migration, so the problem has not gone away.

All the suggestions for improvement in the briefing sound so reasonable….hope some at least are implemented. It’s a great piece of work anyway.

WillH - 01 June 2023 02:28 PM

Thanks Carri, the issues in the briefing are all very worrying - but it’s also incredibly useful to know about them.

Re MPTL, isn’t part of the problem, for social landlords at least, that it uses the third party deduction system so it’s on a 28 day cycle, and can never be fully aligned with UC til that changes?  I think this is something which has been raised in the past but still isn’t fixed…

I also wondered whether you’ve seen any evidence in the discovery phase of people with HB saying they don’t have housing costs when they claim UC? The question on the online UC claim form now says ‘You definitely have housing costs if you get housing benefit’, or something like that, but many (especially more vulnerable) claimants may not realise they get HB if it goes straight to the landlord….I just had a case like this in natural migration, so the problem has not gone away.

All the suggestions for improvement in the briefing sound so reasonable….hope some at least are implemented. It’s a great piece of work anyway.

Thanks vm Will.
Re MPTL I *think* that it doesn’t use the third party deduction cycle any more (seems to have changed 2020 - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/16671) but individual claimants sometimes find their MPTL is set on that cycle by mistake. We’ve seen at least one MM case where that was confirmed to have happened and suggestion it has happened in others. Could there be an info/training problem in the MM specialist team? We don’t have enough evidence.
Re claimants not knowing that they have housing costs, we have seen one discovery phase case where the (ESA+HB) claimant didn’t tick the housing costs box and it took months to sort out. I agree it could be a major issue. Please send us examples of this from natural migration cases if you’re able to share any - it’s all good evidence.

Thanks Carri, I’d missed that.

The UC info for landlords is out of date in that case!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-rented-housing—2/universal-credit-and-rented-housing-guide-for-landlords#managed-payment-to-landlord-alternative-payment-arrangements (last updated May 2020, so doesn’t take the change into account).

The missing housing costs element due to not realising there were housing costs was a Scottish case - I’ve raised it with EWS here.

WillH - 01 June 2023 04:25 PM

The missing housing costs element due to not realising there were housing costs was a Scottish case - I’ve raised it with EWS here.

Nice one thanks

Carri - 01 June 2023 03:10 PM

Re MPTL I *think* that it doesn’t use the third party deduction cycle any more (seems to have changed 2020 - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/16671) but individual claimants sometimes find their MPTL is set on that cycle by mistake. We’ve seen at least one MM case where that was confirmed to have happened and suggestion it has happened in others. Could there be an info/training problem in the MM specialist team? We don’t have enough evidence.

This is correct. APAs went over to being paid by an electronic transfer on the claimant’s UC payment date in autumn 2020. In my experience APA payments are only very rarely paid in the third party deduction four-weekly bulk cycle - and it’s usually a one-off when it happens. They often use the four-weekly cycle for underpayments. But the third party deduction bulk payment cycle still leaves me having to explain to rent officers and tenants why an arrears deduction “hasn’t come through this ‘month’”.

Could there be an info/training problem in basically the whole of UC? Hmmm.

Timothy Seaside - 02 June 2023 11:08 AM

But the third party deduction bulk payment cycle still leaves me having to explain to rent officers and tenants why an arrears deduction “hasn’t come through this ‘month’”.

Thanks for flagging that up.

Hello all
I’m sorry if I’ve joined in the wrong area but can anyone clarify under capital.
I understand that if you were on tax credits and you had excess of £16k it is disregarded for up to 12 months
I also understand that if your capital falls below £16k and then increases above this again you lose your transitional right/protection.
What I’m not 100% on is the excess capital eg if someone going through managed migration has 30k so capital above 16k is ignored and then the capital rises to 50k is that still ok or is it a change of circs and the transitional element stops.
My feeling is that as its ignored still up to 12 months and that it doesn’t matter how much you have over 16k but can anyone agree or disagree with me please.
thank you in anticipation
Best wishes
Nigel

The way I read Reg 51(2), it wouldn’t matter:

“any capital exceeding £16,000 is to be disregarded”

And that is not just a one-off at the point when transitional protection is first established, it reads to me as if those words apply throughout the 12 months.

I suppose the policy intention is to replicate the experience of being on Tax Credits for an extra year, where an increase in the amount of capital would have no effect except insofar as it increases the income derived from capital, which UC cannot be doing with.

Good Morning
Thank you for your reply and taking the time to find the answer.
As you thought re the excess capital disregard I thought the same but was struggling to find it in black and white so to speak.
Best wishes
Nigel.

Hi
Thank you for your help earlier with the excess income of 16k.
My question or my understanding is on tax credits issues that if you only get tax credits and have a migration notice to claim universal credits (UC) is the 6k to 16k calculated in the same way and therefore reducing your UC award as normal and if so the part that is lost is this made up in transitional element. so the person is no worse off. Or are people moving to (UC) going to be worse off if they have savings between 6k and 16k.
I hope you can help best wishes
Nigel

The ‘transitional capital disregard’ means that capital in excess of £16k is ignored.  The capital between £6k and £16k is not covered by the disregard.

Instead, you would still include the claimant’s notional income from their capital for the purposes of calculating the UC transitional element. i.e. if you have over £16k, your indicative UC amount will be reduced by £174 per month because of the capital and therefore, following the comparison with your legacy benefits, your transitional element will be £174 higher than it would be if you didn’t have the capital at all.

As this is a transitional element, it can be eroded and lost in the various circumstances set out in the regs.

Thank you for your response and help it is much appreciated

NIGELB - 03 August 2023 10:54 AM

(...)are people moving to (UC) going to be worse off if they have savings between 6k and 16k.

Just to add to what’s been said: if the tariff income from capital reduces your client’s indicative UC amount to £0 (eg, in combination with other income), there is a different calculation for the transitional element that should mean they are still no worse-off on UC in their first assessment period. See reg 55(1)(b) of the UC(TP) Regs: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1230/regulation/55

Here’s the second CPAG report on managed migration: https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/managed-migration-2

For obvious reasons we want to hear about claimants who have missed their deadlines.

Please let us know about these cases, and any other MM cases you have dealt with. You can email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

If you have time and are happy to be interviewed anonymously, we are still offering £25 vouchers for 40-60 min phone interviews with advisers or claimants about their experiences with MM.