× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Transitional Protection Calculation

Adam Evenson
forum member

Blackpool Centre For Unemployed

Send message

Total Posts: 324

Joined: 9 July 2020

Hi,

Trying to work out whether the TP is correct for a client - UC won’t say what is included in the TPE so I’ve had to manually work it out so was hoping someone could check over the calculations (first one I’ve needed to do!!).

UC entitlement
Standard Allowance: 393.45
Housing: 742.50
Children: 621.25
Disabled Children: 156.11
LCWRA: 416.19
Transitional Protection: 710.80

Total before deductions: 3040
After deductions for ESA & Advance Payment: 2354

Legacy Benefits (monthly)
Child Tax Credits (worked from weekly amount of 297): 1290.27
ESA (Support Group & SDP): 952 **Client unable to specify specifics but definitely getting Support Group and SDP**
Housing Benefit (LHA for 4 bed): 740.48

Total Amount of Legacy: 2982.75

Has that been done correctly? I’m confused and seem to be getting different numbers each time (haha - long day!)

Thanks

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 3035

Joined: 12 March 2013

With a case like this, where there are no earnings, you should be able to isolate the key variables and get an expected amount for transitional protection that is close enough.

The key variables are:
Disabled child element in UC 156.11 v CTC (4170 / 12) 347.50
LCWRA element in UC 416.19 v SDP + EDP + Support Component (150.05 x 52 / 12) 650.22

Total difference: 425.42, which is roughly what the transitional protection ought to be.  So I’m wondering where the other c285 has come from.  Then I think to myself ... 285 ... 285 ... where have I seen that before?  Given the margin for error between the monthly v weekly rates, and the slight discrepancy on the LHA rates there, I’d say the difference is remarkably close to one child allowance.  Which makes me think that the indicative UC calculation might have included one less child than the legacy benefits.

Which is interesting - we were having a legal debate on here about 19 year olds and what DWP might do in such cases.  Does your client have a 19-year-old in non-advanced education for whom s/he got Tax Credit before migration?

Adam Evenson
forum member

Blackpool Centre For Unemployed

Send message

Total Posts: 324

Joined: 9 July 2020

Thanks for the reply.

As far as I am aware no child aged 19 - she has 6 children in total (4 which are school age - one of which the father has parental responsibility for and 2 which are 20+).

She did the calculation herself and she has just over £1000 difference but as you can see I don’t! Client is difficult to get full answers out of and just keeps screaming “its unfair”

The problem I have, as she has already moved over to UC, she has gotten rid of all her old benefit paperwork so I’m going off bank statements. There’s a lot of confusion about what her ESA is as she is claiming to had been on £487 a fortnight which works out at just over £1000 a month which I can’t see how that is. With her already being awarded LCWRA in UC, that surely means ESA Support Group (with the addition of her SDP) which totals the amount given above. 

I could see definitively what was included if UC had bothered to respond to our messages about a calculation. The MP is involved so hopefully they will get answers!

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 3035

Joined: 12 March 2013

ESA should be over £1,000 a month: £1,042.38 to be exact.  That’s the basic £90.50 plus the three additions I referred to above: SDP 81.50 + EDP 20.85 + support component 47.70.  So it seems that she has told you the correct rate of ESA.

As I say, the difference between what she got on ESA and Child Tax Credit, and what she would get on UC without transitional protection, is accounted for by the higher disabled child element in CTC and the shortfall between the LCWRA element and the three ESA supplements.

I would say she is getting too much transitional protection, not too little.  And from what you say about the children, well there are endless opportunities there for DWP to make mistakes.  So I’m pretty sure that one child too many has crept into the transitional element.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1500

Joined: 27 February 2019

It does seem clear that the Indicative UC Amount was calculated assuming two children, and the Total Legacy Amount was with three children, as Peter has suggested. See the full calculation below.

I suppose the first thing to consider is how many child elements should really be included in her award?

TLA:
ESA: (90.50+47.70+20.85+81.50)*52/12=1042.38
HB: 170.88*52/12=740.48
CTC: (1.50+9.47*3+11.43)*365/12=1257.43
Total: 3040.29

IUCA:
SA: 393.45
Housing: 742.50
Children: 333.33+287.92
Disabled child: 156.11
LCWRA: 416.19
Total: 2329.50

Transitional element:
3040.29-2329.50=710.79

Adam Evenson
forum member

Blackpool Centre For Unemployed

Send message

Total Posts: 324

Joined: 9 July 2020

Thank you both - I got lost in the numbers and confused totally! Of course, that is what the ESA should be.

The Child Element notes underneath its amount - “we pay for 2 of your children out of 4” if that helps.

The UC amount has been calculated using 2 children (subject to the 2 child limit - presumably)

[ Edited: 17 Nov 2024 at 09:00 pm by Adam Evenson ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3392

Joined: 14 July 2014

You can work out for yourself how many children should be covered by the CTC / CE based on the exceptions to the two child limit (pre 01/04/17 births, multiple births etc.)

The answer ought to be the same for both CTC and UC so something appears to have gone awry. You won’t be able to get your client any extra TE but if UC should be paying for a third child, you ought to get that addressed.

Adam Evenson
forum member

Blackpool Centre For Unemployed

Send message

Total Posts: 324

Joined: 9 July 2020

Thanks Elliot - I will find out the DOB’s and work out whether any of them else should be added on. I know they missed one of child off completely at first so wouldn’t be surprising.

Its encouraging to know I was in the right ball-park figures for the TE calculation (first one needed to do - we’ve not seen loads and I’m just picking up the ones which are either simple calculations or no TE is needed), and not wildly off the mark