Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Six more UC relevant districts specified…
Six new areas - one per week from 23 June
see
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1583/contents/made
Relevant districts include (parts of) Trafford,Sefton,Bolton,Preston, South Ribble, Knowsley, Wirral,Salford, St Helen’s, Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester (plus additional areas in Tameside).
...and Bury
Just to add to the rightsnet news Further roll-out of universal credit to North West of England New statutory instrument 17 June, 2014, it’s still universal credit only for single childless non-disabled jobseekers (ie claimants satisfying the ‘gateway conditions’ set out in schedule 5 Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 9 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions and Commencement No. 8 and Savings and Transitional Provisions (Amendment)) Order 2013 )
Thanks for the info…please can you confirm that the roll-out in the North West wont include people who have existing housing costs?
Thanks
People with mortgages are not included. The conditions (“Pathfinder Group conditions”) for making a claim for UC are set out in the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/386). As to housing costs it says:
10. The person must not—
(a)be homeless (within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996(6)) and must currently reside at their usual address;
(b)reside in accommodation in which care, supervision, counselling, advice or other support services (other than services connected solely with the provision of adequate accommodation) are made available to them by or on behalf of the person by whom the accommodation is provided, with a view to enabling them to live there;
(c)own, or partly own, the property in which they reside.
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/386/part/2/chapter/2/made
Today’s rightsnet story - http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/news/story/amendments-to-the-universal-credit-gateway-conditions - doesn’t affect the housing costs rules on who can or can’t claim UC. People with mortgages are still not included. People with rent to pay are included as before. The big change is that it’s now couples as well as single claimants who must claim UC if they are childless non-disabled jobseekers without a mortgage.
The lifting of the exclusion on people who currently get HB will bring in a lot more renters than there has been. This applies in the existing pathfinders and the other areas it is being expanded to in the North West, Bury and Bolton included.
The lifting of the exclusion on people who currently get HB will bring in a lot more renters than there has been. This applies in the existing pathfinders and the other areas it is being expanded to in the North West, Bury and Bolton included.
I didn’t think the lifting of the HB restriction would make a really big difference (in term of numbers).
Won’t most renters who on HB who could be affected by this either be
(1) on JSA
or
(2) earning over the £330/month [76.15/weekly] limit for gateway ?
I can see that it could but possibly be useful for HB claimants with other income which prevented JSA or for 18-24 year olds who with earnings just a little over the JSA applicable amount.
Similarly, I don’t think dropping tax credits from the exclusions will have a big effect..
CTC - claimants with children are currently excluded.
WTC - claimants working sufficient hours will normally exceed gateway earnings limit; self-employed are excluded anyway.
I didn’t think the lifting of the HB restriction would make a really big difference (in term of numbers).
Won’t most renters who on HB who could be affected by this either be
(1) on JSA
or
(2) earning over the £330/month [76.15/weekly] limit for gateway ?
I don’t think it mean a massive increase in numbers overall but in terms of the proportions of renters, thought to be very few at the moment from what I hear, I think there will be a significant change. It would seem that a lot of people who move between JSA and low paid insecure employment who would not have previously been within the scope of UC will now be caught. This is not necessarily a bad thing - the current system has been pretty rotten for people in this sort of situation.
Won’t getting rid of the two week JSA link mean people also now end up on UC when they get found not to have been actively seeking work for failing to spend a million hours a week being a committed claimant have to reclaim benefit?
I was thinking that those newly eligible for UC will be existing workers without children but with low enough earnings to qualify for in-work HB and/or WTC and who then lose their job: instead of claiming JSA they will now claim UC.
Probably not enormous numbers and more likely to find them in Hammersmith than anywhere else on account of the ludicrous London rent levels and perhaps a greater proportion of single workers without kids in London.
The lawyers looking after this jenga tower of commencement orders have to be razor-sharp don’t they? I am not sure that consolidating it all in the No. 9 Order (as amended to kingdom come) is exactly what you would call simplification