Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
mixed age couples and LCWRA
am I the only person that feels like their brain is going to explode? (might be an age thing!) I am really struggling with the horrendous changes for MAC and trying to absorb all the different permutations of who can and who cant stay as they are!
anyway .... MAC both under pension age until 6 sept 19 when eldest (husband) reached SRP age (and claimed pension). eldest was claimant for ESA and in support group. He also receives PIP SR DL so is only treated as having LCW and not LCWRA for UC. HB was paid to 5/09/19 when it then ended. Mr was entitled to ESA until 5/09/2019 (day before pension age) and actually claimed UC 5/09/19 also (this is shown as date of entitlement) Couple not entitled to UC due to income (SRP and CA) however, no LCWRA element included in claim.
Am I right in thinking that LCWRA can be included in UC as per regulation 19 of UC (TP) regs? due to dates of claims starting and ending?
If the answer to this question is no. He can be treated as having LCW by virtue of PIP. Im just wondering if he would be entitled to a LCW element as he was entitled to a payment on basis of LCWRA/SG so although award would be downgraded as it were, entitlement would still predate the abolition of payment for LCW? Im guessing he can ask for a new WCA if this is the only available remedy?
I cant believe that this couple will have to pay full rent from SRP and PC (no other income except PIP)! they are over £500 a month worse off compared to PC/HB
I’m actually surprised they don’t have entitlement to UC. Does he have a high-ish SRP - over £180?
Either way, you are correct in saying that the LCWRA element should have been included from the start.
By the way, on the facts you’ve provided, HB should have included a two-week run-on for the period 5/9/19-18/9/19.
[ Edited: 17 Oct 2019 at 07:59 pm by Charles ]This raises a question I had not considered before.
If a claimant in this situation (older member of MAC, in ESA Support Group and about to reach SP age) claims UC the day before reaching SP they get LCWRA element in UC from start. Is it the case that if they delay claiming UC until even a day after reaching SP age they do not get the LCWRA entitlement because they have created a gap between the ESA and UC claims?
Thanks Charles. They have been given 2 week run on. pension is £175, total income £1044 but max UC is £979.54 (HC quite low) so the extra element is crucial really to get a little help towards rent. I have already raised the issue with service centre (after work coach at JC told them they wouldnt be eligible!) so see what happens.
Ianb - yes in my view if there is a gap between benefits, the LCWRA will not carry forward but I do think they can supply fit notes and ask for WCA (how ridiculous that a retired person has to prove that they are too ill to work!)
(how ridiculous that a retired person has to prove that they are too ill to work!)
A brief glipmse at the Credits regs makes me suspect that NI Credits roll on despite ESA stoping thus; maybe, anyone in the Support Group might be able to lean back on their credits to secure the LCWRAE.
I don’t think a pension-age person is entitled to credits (Reg 3 of the Credits Regs).
Also, the relevant subparagraphs of Reg 8B don’t seem to apply, as the person is not, and would not be, entitled to ESA due to their age.
If the UC claim was made on the day they turned pension-age, there would not be a gap between the ESA and the UC, but I still don’t think LCWRA status could roll forward. Reg 19 of the TP Regs requires there be entitlement to ESA on the day UC is claimed.
(See the interpretation reg which explains that this means if not for the termination due to the UC claim.)
so in relation to LCW (rather than LCWRA) if a person is entitled to PIP DL SR and can be treated as having LCW, do they only get the LCW element included in UC if they have moved from ESA to UC and the dates tally as above? or can they get the element included anyway? seems a bit of a pointless exercise to treat someone has having LCW when they dont have any work requirements anyway as they are a pensioner, but not to include the relevant element in the calculation?
so in relation to LCW (rather than LCWRA) if a person is entitled to PIP DL SR and can be treated as having LCW, do they only get the LCW element included in UC if they have moved from ESA to UC and the dates tally as above? or can they get the element included anyway? seems a bit of a pointless exercise to treat someone has having LCW when they dont have any work requirements anyway as they are a pensioner, but not to include the relevant element in the calculation?
They get a higher work allowance if the older partner has LCW, that’s about the only advantage if the extra premium can’t be paid.
ah yes! thank you
I don’t think a pension-age person is entitled to credits (Reg 3 of the Credits Regs).
Also, the relevant subparagraphs of Reg 8B don’t seem to apply, as the person is not, and would not be, entitled to ESA due to their age.
That throws up an interesting dilemma; on your interpretation anyone in the last tax year before they retire can’t take advantage of reg 21 of the UC (Transitional Provisions) regs. If they’re in the Support Group they can’t receive Credits for the last year before they retire because they won’t count toward a prescribed benefit in reg 3.
That’s arguably a breach art 14 ECHR when read with A1P1; old people can’t rely on their credits to gain the LCWRAE…
Now reg 8B of the Credts regs applies to “any benefit by virtue of a person’s earnings or contributions” which doesn’t take too much imagination to stretch to UC where it’s relying on credits which; on your interpretation, can’t otherwise be made. It goes on to prescribe the benefits at (2) but “(2)(a)(v) simply requires that a person might have “claimed ESA within the prescribed time” rather than been entitled to it. The prescribed time I guess is the 365 days.
However, (2)(v) doesn’t restrict the claim to CESA so an IRESA claim would meet that threshold hence I can see an interpretation that’s art 14 compliant without reading in/out of the regs.
The problem with these technical approaches is that there’s a skint person relying on foodbanks while we navel gaze…
[ Edited: 18 Oct 2019 at 11:07 am by Dan_Manville ]
so in relation to LCW (rather than LCWRA) if a person is entitled to PIP DL SR and can be treated as having LCW, do they only get the LCW element included in UC if they have moved from ESA to UC and the dates tally as above? or can they get the element included anyway? seems a bit of a pointless exercise to treat someone has having LCW when they dont have any work requirements anyway as they are a pensioner, but not to include the relevant element in the calculation?
They get a higher work allowance if the older partner has LCW, that’s about the only advantage if the extra premium can’t be paid.
Also if one partner is working and the other has LCW then they can potentially claim childcare costs as part of UC.
[The problem with these technical approaches is that there’s a skint person relying on foodbanks while we navel gaze…
Couldn’t agree more. If advisers are having difficulty understanding the way everything works how can a claimant possibly be expected to know. It seems that there are some highly damaging impacts on people at the point of reaching SP age caused by just a couple of days difference in when they claim for something.
If they haven’t claimed PC in advance of reaching SP age they lose any UC for the assessment period in which they reach SP age.
From this thread it appears that if in the situation discussed above they lose LCWRA status unless they claim UC at least the day before reaching SP age.
That throws up an interesting dilemma; on your interpretation anyone in the last tax year before they retire can’t take advantage of reg 21 of the UC (Transitional Provisions) regs. If they’re in the Support Group they can’t receive Credits for the last year before they retire because they won’t count toward a prescribed benefit in reg 3.
That’s arguably a breach art 14 ECHR when read with A1P1; old people can’t rely on their credits to gain the LCWRAE…
Now reg 8B of the Credts regs applies to “any benefit by virtue of a person’s earnings or contributions” which doesn’t take too much imagination to stretch to UC where it’s relying on credits which; on your interpretation, can’t otherwise be made. It goes on to prescribe the benefits at (2) but “(2)(a)(v) simply requires that a person might have “claimed ESA within the prescribed time” rather than been entitled to it. The prescribed time I guess is the 365 days.
However, (2)(v) doesn’t restrict the claim to CESA so an IRESA claim would meet that threshold hence I can see an interpretation that’s art 14 compliant without reading in/out of the regs.
About Reg 3, I do get what you’re saying. I’ve also wondered about cases where, for example, a claimant has already earned enough that year that credits are not necessary. I’ve always assumed that as in practice credits are still given in these cases, that’s enough. But pensioners definitely don’t get credits.
I still don’t agree about Reg 8B though. All the cases in (2)(a)(iv)-(v) are predicated on there being entitlement to ESA. The reason for this is that otherwise “limited capability for work” has no legal meaning. So, for example, (2)(a)(v) refers to “had that person claimed an employment and support allowance” to get round the problem of a claim being needed for there to be entitlement to ESA.
The problem with these technical approaches is that there’s a skint person relying on foodbanks while we navel gaze…
Couldn’t agree more!
I still don’t agree about Reg 8B though. All the cases in (2)(a)(iv)-(v) are predicated on there being entitlement to ESA. The reason for this is that otherwise “limited capability for work” has no legal meaning. So, for example, (2)(a)(v) refers to “had that person claimed an employment and support allowance” to get round the problem of a claim being needed for there to be entitlement to ESA.
Yebbut; you need to have LCW to maintain entitlement to Credits whether or not you’re entitled to ESA… There’s no provision for a Period of LCW to end other than being found not to have LCW. I think LCW is a freestanding status that doesn’t rely on ESA entitlement.
If, for instance, your ESA stops because your capital rises above the upper threshold you’re still LCW and retain entitlement to Credits.
Exactly, and that is due to reg 8B(2)(a)(iv)-(v), which provide for that by telling you to “pretend” there was entitlement to ESA! That is, by ignoring any contributory conditions not fulfilled, ignoring any time-limitation, and ignoring the lack of a claim.
[ Edited: 18 Oct 2019 at 03:21 pm by Charles ]