Forum Home → Discussion → Benefits for older people → Thread
SDP query
Struggling with an SDP issue here, and i just want some feedback to prove im not losing it.
I have a single client who lives with her 40 year old adult son, and she gets Pension credit with carers premium, as he gets MRC DLA (as well as SDA)
She called for advice, saying she wanted her son to claim CA for looking after her.
As she said he lives with her, i didnt see a problem with him claiming CA , as the way I see it there is no SDP to lose in the first place, because she lives with another non dependant (CPAG p 235)
Client arrived with CA form for her son, and I picked up that she gets £247 a week income, inc GPC.
The SDP is in place here and I cant for the life of me understand why.
Ive checked Cpag and cant understand how the SDP is part of her applicable.
I know SDP will stop if CA claimed, but my argument is it should stop anyway as she shouldnt get it in the first place
Thoughts??
Hello,
Unless I’m mistaken, which I can be from time to time, sounds very much to me that both of them appear to be in receipt of either MRC or HRC to DLA, or AA (her) or Daily Living comp to PIP. If so, then everyone stop claiming Carers Allowance; unless there’s an underlying entitlement somewhere for the carer premium, and double bubble SDP should be awarded.
That is, of course, there is no other 18 or over person in the household not in receipt of the relevant benefit.
Thank you.
Patrick
Because both are in receipt of DLA MRCC (or AA I presume in the mum’s case?) This means that son is effectively invisible (and mum attracts SDP regardless of son’s presence in the household). She presumably has only an underlying entitlement to CA (it probably overlaps with her RP, which is in turn topped up with PC) so son should also attract SDP as a part of his applicable amount.
Whether client will lose her SDP will depend on whether son is actually paid any CA in respect of her (rather than having an underlying entitlement to it only). If it overlaps entirely with his SDA she will keep her SDP (and he will attract a CP as part of his applicable amount). If that makes sense….
Funny you should use the word “invisible” as i said to a co-worker that i wondered if his DLA made him invisible for SDP purposes.
I still cant find anything in CPAG about this : it only seems to mention partners in PC, not other adults in the household.
Ive done loads of PC couples cases where 2 x CPs, and 2 X SDPs apply, but not seen it where 2 x sdps apply to mother and son.
In that case I will keep an eye out to ensure when he is migrated to ESA next month that an SDP is included for him also
Thanks folks
Because both are in receipt of DLA MRCC (or AA I presume in the mum’s case?) This means that son is effectively invisible (and mum attracts SDP regardless of son’s presence in the household). She presumably has only an underlying entitlement to CA (it probably overlaps with her RP, which is in turn topped up with PC) so son should also attract SDP as a part of his applicable amount.
Whether client will lose her SDP will depend on whether son is actually paid any CA in respect of her (rather than having an underlying entitlement to it only). If it overlaps entirely with his SDA she will keep her SDP (and he will attract a CP as part of his applicable amount). If that makes sense….
It makes sense, as ive seen this a million times in Pension age COUPLES, but i wasnt sure how it applied to single people who lived with A.N Other adult. Ive stopped him claiming CA as this would definitely wipe out SDP.
Funny you should use the word “invisible” as i said to a co-worker that i wondered if his DLA made him invisible for SDP purposes.
I still cant find anything in CPAG about this : it only seems to mention partners in PC, not other adults in the household.
Ive done loads of PC couples cases where 2 x CPs, and 2 X SDPs apply, but not seen it where 2 x sdps apply to mother and son.
In that case I will keep an eye out to ensure when he is migrated to ESA next month that an SDP is included for him also
Thanks folks
Page 237 (2nd bullet point) exempts people from the definition of non-dependent and, therefore, allows the SDP.
Thank you
Patrick
When he is migrated to ESA it would be means tested which should mean that Carers Allowance would no longer be underlying.
When he is migrated to ESA it would be means tested which should mean that Carers Allowance would no longer be underlying.
Depends what group he gets in. If he was getting an IS top-up, that award would be converted to ir-ESA. But SDA converts to contributory ESA, so if he gets Support Group he will keep c-ESA indefinitely. Work Group would mean that the CA could no longer be underlying 365 days after conversion.