Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
LCWRA for people over state pension age
The regulations allow for LCWRA to be awarded to people over state pension credit age who are in receipt of higher rate PIP daily living (Schedule 9, para 5 of 2013 regs).
If a claimant was claiming UC prior to attaining SPC age, with the LCWRA element, will this persist, or will it be dropped if they don’t have enhanced PIP?
I have a client who has unfortunately missed the boat for having his LCWRA transferred from ESA support group as he has already attained SPC and had not previously claimed UC. Calculating his UC entitlement (part of a mixed age couple) shows an entitlement a couple of hundred pounds less than the benefits they received prior to him attaining SPC age due to him being in support group, but only having PIP daily living standard hence no extra money on UC.
For future clients I’m wondering if we catch them before they get to SPC age we could suggest they make an earlier claim to UC and hence get the LCWRA carried over.
I don’t understand. Your client has ESA award with support component and then reached SPA so ESA award ended and he had to claim UC instead.
Reg.28(5)(b) of UC Regs enables the LCWRA component to be added from start date of UC award surely?
I don’t understand. Your client has ESA award with support component and then reached SPA so ESA award ended and he had to claim UC instead.
Reg.28(5)(b) of UC Regs enables the LCWRA component to be added from start date of UC award surely?
The problem is regulation 19 states:
19.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a)an award of universal credit is made to a claimant who was entitled to old style ESA on the date on which the claim for universal credit was made or treated as made (“the relevant date”); and
(b)on or before the relevant date it had been determined that the claimant was entitled to the work-related activity component or to the support component.
His ESA has already ended, (reached SPC age a couple of weeks ago) so would not meet paragraph a, as he is not entitled to old style ESA on the date on which the claim for UC was made.
In future, if I can catch the clients to claim before they reach SPC age, would the LCWRA entitlement persist even once they reach SPC age?
There is no reason why it would not persist. Entitlement to PIP DL at the enhanced rate is simply another route to be treated as having LCWRA. It won’t affect any other reason for having LCWRA.
The problem is regulation 19 states:
19.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a)an award of universal credit is made to a claimant who was entitled to old style ESA on the date on which the claim for universal credit was made or treated as made (“the relevant date”); and
(b)on or before the relevant date it had been determined that the claimant was entitled to the work-related activity component or to the support component.His ESA has already ended, (reached SPC age a couple of weeks ago) so would not meet paragraph a, as he is not entitled to old style ESA on the date on which the claim for UC was made.
In future, if I can catch the clients to claim before they reach SPC age, would the LCWRA entitlement persist even once they reach SPC age?
Ah I see the problem. His ESA award has ended and he’s done nothing about it until coming to see you 2 weeks later?
In that case, is there any way in which you could use backdating provisions for UC claim as per CPAG p.47? The ones that might apply could be:
* previously getting ESA and not notified that entitlement was going to end
* he has a disability (which it seems he clearly has)
* he was unwell and couldn’t make an online claim.
Otherwise, due to the rather brutal requirement for the UC claim to be made on or before the ESA award ends, I can’t see a way around this problem. And as such, yes, he’d need to supply fit note and seek a WCA to get the LCWRA element reinstated. What a complete mess this policy is and what misery for the people affected by it.
I think that even if they manage to get it backdated, that won’t change the date of claim (see reg 26 of the UC etc (C&P) Regs), so reg 19 of the UC (TP) Regs still won’t help for the LCWRA element. But of course, its worth trying to get a backdate anyway, for itself.
Not sure I agree Charles. Reg.26 allows for up to one month of backdating if any of the reasons in para.3 apply. Note that para.(2)(a) stipulates that this can happen if one or more of the circumstances listed applies, or has applied, and as a result the claimant could not have been expected to have claimed earlier.
Reg.19 talks about “the claim for universal credit was made or treated as made “ - in the later situation, reg.26(2) is the mechanism for treating the date of claim as being up to one month earlier.
My understanding is that reg 26 only extends the period in which the claim has to be made, but the date of claim is still the date it is actually made. This is supported by subparagraph (1) and also the wording in subparagraph (2): “to the date on which the claim is made”.
I think the “treated as made” refers to claims like those in reg 9 of the C&P Regs.
The ADM doesn’t seem to think that’s the case either.
A2044 Example 1
Jason makes a claim electronically to UC on 2 May. H e indicates that he wishes to claim from 6 April. He says that he delayed claiming UC as he was in receipt of ESA until 5 April but was not informed that this was stopping until the 28 April. The DM decides that the time limit for claiming UC can be extended as Jason could not have been expected to claim earlier as he was away from home until 2 May. The date of claim for UC is 6 April.
Hmm, interesting. I still stand by my opinion though - it wouldn’t be the first time the ADM is incorrect!
Basically I think reg 26 is only about extending the time limit for making a claim, not changing the technical “date of claim” which is decided by reg 10.