Forum Home → Discussion → Benefits for older people → Thread
Mixed age couple where younger partner is added retrospectively
Hi, I have a mixed age couple where the older party has been in receipt of PC for many years but never declared that her partner had moved in with her and this has now come to light. I wondered if PC will now just add just add the partner to the claim and issue an overpayment decision (if appropriate) OR if they will close the PC claim entirely on the basis that they would now have to claim UC instead. They would still have an entitlement to PC based on joint income/savings. I know that mixed age couples who were in receipt of PC prior to 15/05/19 are protected but does this protection exist when the partner is only added retrospectively after compliance action? Thanks.
Just my two cents but I think they might be stuffed. They’re not currently a mixed age couple in the eyes of the benefit system. Any chance they also claim HB and he’s on there? If they’ve got a joint pensioner HB claim from May 2019 then I think you’ve got a chance of them claiming PC as a couple. Without the HB, I’d be very concerned this will mean they need to claim UC.
Someone might have another view though!
I think it is possible for the transitional protection to apply
It depends if there would be an entitlement to PC at the time they became a couple and to how much
If the entitlement at that time is </= to the amount the PC partner was entitled to then it is arguable that the couple can take advantage of the transitional protection.
The non advantageous change takes effect as a supersession from the benefit week following the change . The couple are by definition a mixed age couple from that date
If the change would otherwise result in a higher entitlement the otherwise advantageous supersession will take effect from the time it was notified or came to light. That would in effect stop any PC entitlement
If the effect of the supersession would be to end PC for a period there could be a closed period supersession but only if the period does not extend beyond May 2019
It’s really not - the savings provisions for PC only apply where you were already in a MAC on 14.05.19 which quite clearly they weren’t.
Do they claim HB as a couple, and if so have they done so since before May 2019, as that might mean you can use the savings provisions.
It’s really not - the savings provisions for PC only apply where you were already in a MAC on 14.05.19 which quite clearly they weren’t.
Actually, I see what you’re saying Derek. If the effect of adding the undisclosed partner was that the PC award paid less, then it could be arguable that the supersession request takes effect from the week after the partner joined the household. If that was before 14 May 2019, then it could therefore be argued they were an MAC as required by Art.4 of CO.31.
It’s really not - the savings provisions for PC only apply where you were already in a MAC on 14.05.19 which quite clearly they weren’t.
Actually, I see what you’re saying Derek. If the effect of adding the undisclosed partner was that the PC award paid less, then it could be arguable that the supersession request takes effect from the week after the partner joined the household. If that was before 14 May 2019, then it could therefore be argued they were an MAC as required by Art.4 of CO.31.
I agree: treating them as a couple from when the change is reported only applies for the purpose of fixing the effective date of an advantageous superseding decision. If there isn’t going to be an advantageous superseding decision, the pre-2019 award should be revised/superseded in the normal way. There will be an overpayment of course, but it will probably be worth it!