× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

CBESA to IRESA for HB

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

Client on CBESA & DLA HRC, HRM. Husband passed away last month and client needs to claim housing costs for LA property and arrears are mounting. Unfortunately client can’t face discussing benefits just now!

My plan is to ask for an ESA3 to get IRESA with SDP and to claim HB. Claim for HB will fail but will be able to ask them to revise that when SDP awarded.

Can anyone see a flaw in this plan?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Works if its old-style ESA but not if its new-style.

There are different views on whether its better (well more straightforward) to either attempt to make a claim before DWP sorts out SDP, or to sort out SDP first and then claim requesting backdating (assuming it can be done quickly enough) but the end result is the same.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

Thank you. My problem is that it’s 5 weeks since the husband died so i’m already having to look at a 1 month backdate and in my experience ESA3’s take a long time to be actioned

bristol_1
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 241

Joined: 7 September 2015

I’ve got a slightly different CB ESA to IR ESA query.

My clients are a couple and he gets CB ESA 74.70 + SC 39.40 plus a transitional addition of 77.05, their total income is 191.15, this exceeds their applicable amount for IR ESA (which ended about 5 years ago when they were overscale).
Now he’s got PIP ERDL, I’m thinking his partner could claim CA, she would not get paid due to overlapping benefit rules but could then do an ESA 3 and ask for IRESA to be paid as the applicable amount should increase by the carer’s premium.
Is that right?

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

Is she getting a benefit that overlaps with CA? If the CBESA is his and she has no overlapping benefit, there is no overlapping benefit issue. I didn’t think it’s possible to make a new claim for IRESA , however looking at past posts it seems it may be possible so long as CBESA isn’t new style

Edit - changed advice after looking into it!

[ Edited: 14 May 2021 at 11:01 am by unhindered by talent ]
bristol_1
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 241

Joined: 7 September 2015

Ah right I’ve got myself in a muddle - he gets the CB ESA, she has no income. I was thinking that CA would overlap with his CB ESA but it won’t as it’s paid to the individual. I was wondering if, because ESA CB/IR are effectively the same benefit (and he’s not on NS ESA) that they could restart the IR part of ESA.

But this way, if she claims CA and gets it, they’re actually better off in weekly income than what I proposed above.

Thanks

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

bristol_1 - 14 May 2021 11:00 AM

Ah right I’ve got myself in a muddle - he gets the CB ESA, she has no income. I was thinking that CA would overlap with his CB ESA but it won’t as it’s paid to the individual. I was wondering if, because ESA CB/IR are effectively the same benefit (and he’s not on NS ESA) that they could restart the IR part of ESA.

But this way, if she claims CA and gets it, they’re actually better off in weekly income than what I proposed above.

Thanks

I changed my advice after digging a bit and I think you may be able to claim IRESA for the reasons you give

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

bristol_1 - 14 May 2021 11:00 AM

Ah right I’ve got myself in a muddle - he gets the CB ESA, she has no income. I was thinking that CA would overlap with his CB ESA but it won’t as it’s paid to the individual. I was wondering if, because ESA CB/IR are effectively the same benefit (and he’s not on NS ESA) that they could restart the IR part of ESA.

But this way, if she claims CA and gets it, they’re actually better off in weekly income than what I proposed above.

Thanks

We can overthink these old style ESA cases sometimes can’t we.  Strip it down to the basics: Claimant with large amount of contribution based ESA; partner with nothing.  Looks like partner can get CA. Good.  That’s all.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

Slightly different angle on the same theme. If client gets CBESA and partner gets NSESA, could CBESA claimant claim IRESA with partner’s NSESA as income?

bristol_1
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 241

Joined: 7 September 2015

I think they would be overscale for ESAir unless there was entitlement to 1 x , or 2 x SDPs.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

I agree but with an SDP, do you think it’s technically possible or would NSESA as partner’s income scupper it?

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 958

Joined: 24 November 2017

unhindered by talent - 18 May 2021 11:02 AM

I agree but with an SDP, do you think it’s technically possible or would NSESA as partner’s income scupper it?

I think it’s technically possible. I don’t see it is any different to both partners claiming legacy ESA with one of them getting any relevant income based top ups.

unhindered by talent
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Aberdeenshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 445

Joined: 18 October 2013

That’s what I thought but wasn’t sure if the NSESA was toxic to the potential top-up claim somehow