× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

DWP refusal to use Reg 61(3)

 < 1 2

Tara CAC
forum member

Children's Centre Project: Citizens Advice Cornwall

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 8 August 2018

Gareth Morgan - 22 June 2020 05:09 PM
Charles - 22 June 2020 02:40 PM
Gareth Morgan - 22 June 2020 01:43 PM

If it’s irrational to take 2 months earnings into account, because of an assessment period’s date, is it not also irrational to take 2 4-weeks earnings into account because of an assessment period’s date?  ,,, or 3 2-weeks’ earnings ... or 5 1-week’s earnings?

This actually gets a mention in paras 80-81 of the judgement.

Para. 80. ““There is no predictable way of identifying when a person is in receipt of monthly, weekly, biweekly or four weekly payments…”

They could look at field 42 of the RTI data. Pay frequency. This is

• W1 (Weekly)
• W2 (Fortnightly)
• W4 (4 Weekly)
• M1 (Calendar Monthly)
• M3 (Quarterly)
• M6 (Bi-annually)
• MA (Annually)

I think the feed has limited info UC end - I saw a screenshot once but I mustn’t of saved the file

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Tara CAC - 17 September 2020 11:19 AM
Charles - 22 June 2020 02:40 PM
Gareth Morgan - 22 June 2020 01:43 PM

If it’s irrational to take 2 months earnings into account, because of an assessment period’s date, is it not also irrational to take 2 4-weeks earnings into account because of an assessment period’s date?  ,,, or 3 2-weeks’ earnings ... or 5 1-week’s earnings?

This actually gets a mention in paras 80-81 of the judgement.
There is a difference in that generally those cases will not lead to a loss of UC overall, so will only have the fluctuating income issue.

By the way, does anyone know more details about the “workaround” mentioned in para 66?

are they talking about the grace period?

IIRC, Neil Couling confirmed on Twitter that this was a real workaround, not simply the grace period.

Tara CAC
forum member

Children's Centre Project: Citizens Advice Cornwall

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 8 August 2018

so a real work around to override the totals counted for benefit cap but they haven’t been using the actual work around for the earnings used to calculate the award ?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

Yes, he confirmed that they simply treat Reg 82(1)(a) as being satisfied in these cases.

Tara CAC
forum member

Children's Centre Project: Citizens Advice Cornwall

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 8 August 2018

Charles - 17 September 2020 01:12 PM

Yes, he confirmed that they simply treat Reg 82(1)(a) as being satisfied in these cases.

Prior to the 4wkly pay and benefit cap case….interesting!