Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Pneumoconiosis (workers compensation act 1979) - disregarded as capital?
Hello
I so want this to be disregarded but no sure it fits
Pension age customer received £12k compensation from Pneumoconiosis (workers compensation act 1979) in respect of her late husband.
This put her total capital capital over £16 and she has said she knows we have to end her claim – Ive looked
in Sch 6, but this scheme isn’t specifically mentioned, but would it come under para 17? which talks about payment for personal injury administer by the high court?
Thanks
Two thoughts?
Could this be classed as a personal injury payment and thus disregarded? eta. sorry just realised you’ve already referenced this and to be honest, now I’ve read your post properly, I don’t think this helps. My reading of legislation is that PI payment must be made in respect of claimant themselves.
Do they get Pension Credit Guarantee Credit? If so, any capital in terms of HB claim is disregarded due to passporting.
[ Edited: 13 Jun 2022 at 04:12 pm by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]Alas no , she doesn’t get PC - I had hoped that as it is technoically personal injury to the late husband iot could be disregarded for at least a while .
Oh well
If you search on HBINFO for threads to which Kevin D contributed you will find people debating exactly when the person who received the compensation needs to be or have been a partner: does the reference to partner mean the person who is the claimant’s partner now, or the person who was the claimant’s partner when the injury occurred, or the person who was the claimant’s partner when the compensation was paid? I don’t think there was any consensus.
Busy today, will have a look when I get a chance.
The relevant regulation is presumably para 17(1) of the HB (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension) Regs 2006. It reads: “(1) An amount equal to the amount of any payment made in consequence of any personal injury to the claimant or, if the claimant has a partner, to the partner.” Surely you can argue that this payment is “made in consequence of” the personal injury to the claimant’s partner? As I read the paragraph the payment doesn’t have to be made to the partner, it just has to be a consequence of the injury to the partner. Otherwise damages paid to widows/widowers following a fatal accident would not be disregarded.
The HB guidance is pretty clear on how the DWP think this applies.
P1.161 If a claimant has received a payment in respect of a deceased relative, the personal injury payment rules do not apply. Instead, normal capital rules should be applied. For example, the DTI payments made to widows of ex-miners cannot be disregarded because they are intended to make sure the person suffering the injury or disease, not their widow, does not suffer any detriment.
The HB guidance is pretty clear on how the DWP think this applies.
P1.161 If a claimant has received a payment in respect of a deceased relative, the personal injury payment rules do not apply. Instead, normal capital rules should be applied. For example, the DTI payments made to widows of ex-miners cannot be disregarded because they are intended to make sure the person suffering the injury or disease, not their widow, does not suffer any detriment.
What about the suffering of the widow
I think the problem, as Peter alluded to in his post about KevinD on HBINFO, is that (I may be wrong) the payment has been made to a “former” partner and not a “partner”. The partnership ended on the date of death. If they wanted to change this they would have by now, it is not difficult to add it on to the appropriate regs.
Doesn’t it turn on the regulation saying An amount equal to the amount of any payment made in consequence of any personal injury to the claimant or, if the claimant has a partner, to the partner.
This client does not have a partner, she had a partner who has now sadly died. In the situation where both are alive, then yes the PI payment can be ignored regardless of whether it is the claimant or the partner who receives it. In this case, I can’t see how you can argue she “has” a partner because she doesn’t, even if the payment is made towards that partner.
Very harsh I agree.