Search rightsnet
Search options







Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other universal credit issues  →  Thread

Minimum income floor - averaging earnings in the calculation of individual threshold under UC 90(6)(b)


Tim Blackwell
forum member

Developer, Lisson Grove Benefits Program Ltd

Send message

Total Posts: 27

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’ve been wondering if anyone has had any luck arguing that the minimum income floor should not apply because of the scope for averaging earnings under UC regs 90(6)(b).

Regulation 62(1) tells us that the minimum income floor applies to claimants in gainful self employment who are not subject to all work related requirements.  So we have to decide the matter of whether a claimant is subject to all work related requirements before we can decide whether the minimum income floor applies. And a claimant whose earnings exceed the individual threshold under reg 90 is not subject to any work related requirements.

The practical upshot of this would be that you could argue that earnings should be averaged over 3 months or a recognisable cycle - thereby helping eg self employed workers whose earnings are generally over the MIF, but who have the odd bad month.


forum member

locum adviser CPAG Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 185

Joined: 17 June 2010

I’ve just suggested this route to another client, but don’t know whether it will work as not clear as yet how many months there are earnings (tho they are quite high when they happen) & how many none at all (let alone whether there is a pattern). I’m also wondering whether there are any self-employed losses (as the client seems to lurch from months with no income to months with high earnings, but it could just be to do with when payment comes in).

I’ll let you know if I get a result!

On this subject, & assuming the ‘earning enough’ argument doesn’t work, the client is currently off sick, which gives a temporary suspension of the work search requirement under reg 99. However, it seems to me that the client still falls under s22 WRA 2012, & so reg 62(1)(b) still applies. Do people agree?

If so, that seems very unfair. The only other argument I can think of is that for the AP in which the period of sickness fall, the MIF should be much lower (ie not based on 35 hours), because for at least 2 of those weeks he hasn’t been able to work…. Am I missing something? Is there any way in which MIF provision deals with temporarily unwell self-employed people?