Holiday Pay

I have a case where HB has ended due to earnings on the RTI system which included normal weekly earnings plus remuneration for holiday entitlement not taken within the accounting period. This was weekly pay and the earnings have dropped back down to the normal level from the next week onwards. We are a UC full service area.

The LA has indicated that they can reinstate HB on receipt of evidence that the higher level payment was a one-off, but my worry is that the 1 week ‘break’ in the claim will mean they would need to claim UC instead. Can anyone confirm if this is the case or if there are any grounds for rekindling the HB claim in this scenario?

Thanks,

Most councils accept that a “closed period” supersession can be inserted into the adjudication history without disturbing the current award.  There is then no need for a new claim and no migration to UC.

It gets complicated if the period without entitlement extends up to the date on which the decision ending HB is made.  For example, the Council receives RTI evidence today (Date 2) from which it concludes that the claimant is not currently entitled to HB since Date 1.  A decision is made to end the HB award.  The claimant subsequently produces evidence that s/he would be entitled again from Date 3, but it is too late now to interpose a closed period supersession: as of Date 2 the claimant was currently, correctly not entitled to HB.

So it all depends how short the break in entitlement was and when it was discovered.  If the evidence came to light after the end of the period of nil entitlement, a clsoed period supersession will do the job.  Even if the decision the Council made was simply to end the award, that decision could be revised to have effect as a closed period supersession.  But if the higher earnings were still current at the point when the Council made the decision, I don’t think there is a way back to HB (subject to the rare exceptions where a new HB claim is allowed in full service - I’m assuming they don’t apply here).

As an alternative you could suggest that the Copuncil spreads the holiday pay over a longer period that reduces HB without ever completely extinguishing it.  That will mean a higher overpayment, or reduced HB going forward for longer than would otherwise have been the case, but the claimant might feel that is a price worth paying to avoid UC.

Thanks for this. The timing in this case seems to fit into the closed period supersession scenario so hopefully they will remain on HB.