Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Series of UC changes just announced and completion of rollout extended to March 2023
Written statement -
- claimants in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium will not be moved to Universal Credit until they qualify for transitional protection. In addition, an on-going payment will be provided to claimants who have already lost the Premium as a consequence of moving to Universal Credit, and also an additional payment to cover the period since they moved.
- govt will increase the incentives for parents to take short-term or temporary work and increase their earnings by ensuring that the award of, or increase in, support for childcare costs will not erode transitional protection.
- govt proposes to re-award claimants’ transitional protection that has ceased owing to short-term increases in earnings within an assessment period, if they make a new claim for UC within three months of when they received the additional payment.
- for tax credit claimants, the govt will disregard any capital in excess of £16,000 for 12 months from the point at which they are moved to Universal Credit. Normal benefit rules will apply after this time in order to strike the right balance between keeping incentives for saving and asking people to support themselves.
NB - the govt adds that, in order to make the changes to the system, it will be necessary to extend the completion of UC to March 2023.
[ Edited: 7 Jun 2018 at 02:49 pm by shawn mach ]I dearly hope they mean “receive or would be receiving the SDP other than by way of temporary suspension of a qualifying benefit due to an inpatient stay in hospital or a similar institution”; otherwise they’ll just have an even more coherent group to bring another JR.
Well done all involved in that by the way; I suspect I’d be popping a cork at that announcement. 😊
SSWP required to undertake yet another trawlling exercise? Presumably this will require an amendment to the regs to prevent ‘natural migration’ in specified cases (or SSWP to exercise discretion?). As ever the devil will be in the detail.
McVey really isn’t doing very well at the momment!
Written statement -
- claimants in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium will not be moved to Universal Credit until they qualify for transitional protection. In addition, an on-going payment will be provided to claimants who have already lost the Premium as a consequence of moving to Universal Credit, and also an additional payment to cover the period since they moved.
So does that mean people with an SDP can claim legacy benefits, like those with 3 kids?
Written statement -
- claimants in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium will not be moved to Universal Credit until they qualify for transitional protection. In addition, an on-going payment will be provided to claimants who have already lost the Premium as a consequence of moving to Universal Credit, and also an additional payment to cover the period since they moved.
So does that mean people with an SDP can claim legacy benefits, like those with 3 kids?
Presumably so: the Regs will need re-writing to exempt this group from ‘natural migration’ - ? Hmmmm. But people are being found fit for work all the time, then bounced on to UC, then it’s discovered that the original decision was a crock and it’s overturned, but they remain on UC with less money! Is DWP going to stop that happening, and if so how, I wonder?
Any clues yet as to the revised timetable?
Universal Credit simplifying the benefits system in a magnificently complicated manner again…..
I reckon this is in anticipation of the Leigh Day JR decision which was discussed at last week’s NAWRA meeting, whereby they were reasonably confident that the judgment would go in favour of the appellants with respect to losing SDP etc on migration.
One way would be to stop referring claimants receiving SDP/EDP for a WCA until such time as they have introduced regs. for TP (one might assume DWP have them in draft form ready for managed migration by now?). Of course there will be those who are already in the WCA process and those who still slip through that net in the interim.
And as you note Andrew there will be the issue of those who have been found fit migrated to UC and lost premiums as a result but the decision is subsequently overturned on MR/appeal as well as thouse who have migrated due to other COC’s.
And on the same day as https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/universal-credit-provides-huge-benefits-for-claimants-the-broader-populatio
Another fine mess .......
Written statement -
- claimants in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium will not be moved to Universal Credit until they qualify for transitional protection. In addition, an on-going payment will be provided to claimants who have already lost the Premium as a consequence of moving to Universal Credit, and also an additional payment to cover the period since they moved.
So does that mean people with an SDP can claim legacy benefits, like those with 3 kids?
It may be that claims will not be accepted from this ‘category of case’ via a Secretary of State determination made under Regulation 4 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 - as was done with the switching off of the live service…. particularly as today’s statement says regulations aren’t expected until the Autumn so there will be cash losers affected unnecessarily for months to come without quick action.
It may be that claims will not be accepted from this ‘category of case’ via a Secretary of State determination made under Regulation 4 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 ...
Given the difficulty, for example, the SSWP currently has identifying UC claimants who are entitled to the LCFW/LCFWRA element under UC(TP) reg. 19 I can forsee some problems for the SSWP identifying such cases in practice!
[ Edited: 7 Jun 2018 at 04:46 pm by shawn mach ]I too suspect it would be a good idea not to assume that DWP will be able to spot all the cases, or to act on them appropriately. I suppose we’ll all need to keep lists of eligible people and keep on pestering DWP!!!
It would be interesting if Reg 4 were to be used - I’ve asked DWP to employ this to exclude people who plainly cannot make or manage an online claim (and of these there will be a fair overlap with those currently eligible for SDP) and they have ignored every request. Except for one, which was refused out of hand.
And if they finally use Reg 4 as a tool to protect vulnerable claimants, consideration should certainly be given to applying it to those who have corporate appointees, a matter we have been pursuing for three years without getting a coherent (or any) response.
so assuming they do mean those with an sdp dont claim uc that then means those who lose the sdp due to being moved from dla to pip still could be pending an appeal….but if they move and the appeal is successful they would then be due this payment to mitigate against that loss?
Universal Credit simplifying the benefits system in a magnificently complicated manner again…..
I reckon this is in anticipation of the Leigh Day JR decision which was discussed at last week’s NAWRA meeting, whereby they were reasonably confident that the judgment would go in favour of the appellants with respect to losing SDP etc on migration.
they should just start making random rules for fun like if you have x amount of vowels in your surname you claim legacy benefits but only if your above 5 foot 8 and born between a sunday and a wednesday.
keep us on our toes.
... I reckon this is in anticipation of the Leigh Day JR decision which was discussed at last week’s NAWRA meeting, whereby they were reasonably confident that the judgment would go in favour of the appellants with respect to losing SDP etc on migration.
Cheers Paul .....
As a reminder, here’s an earlier thread on the Leigh Day stuff: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/12399/
Another full year delay is not needed for these changes….just an excuse to buy yet more time for this hopeless system.
2025 is the earliest completion date in my crystal ball but perhaps that is far too optimistic! Loss of tax credits just before an election if the parties are close in the polls.
I note the TV companies are looking to film a number of programs about the early UC sites…starting with Hartlepool.
- for tax credit claimants, the govt will disregard any capital in excess of £16,000 for 12 months from the point at which they are moved to Universal Credit. Normal benefit rules will apply after this time in order to strike the right balance between keeping incentives for saving and asking people to support themselves.
Brace ourselves for a slew of deprivation of capital cases?
- for tax credit claimants, the govt will disregard any capital in excess of £16,000 for 12 months from the point at which they are moved to Universal Credit. Normal benefit rules will apply after this time in order to strike the right balance between keeping incentives for saving and asking people to support themselves.
Just to check my understanding here: “from the point at which they are moved” suggests this applies to managed migration, and that those who naturally migrate will not benefit from this?
And does this imply that the original plan for tax credit claimants holding in excess of £16K, was that they would receive no UC transitional protection at all, even if they held out until managed migration to UC?
Or, is this rule for those who naturally migrate between now (or the implementation of the rule) and conversion?
Surely anyone with excess capital and currently in receipt of tax credits can avoid natural migration by simply not claiming UC? They would gain nothing from it, and potentially lose their Tax Credits. It is not as if they stand to lose any other means tested benefits.
I can see difficulties where someone on Tax Credits attempts to claim a free-standing new-style contribution based benefit, DWP forces them to do it via the UC platform and HMRC forms the impression that they have actually claimed UC. But subject to that practical issue, I cannot see any reason in law why transitional protection for Tax Credits on natural migration is necessary or serves any purpose. So I think it will only affect managed migration.
I can see difficulties where someone on Tax Credits attempts to claim a free-standing new-style contribution based benefit, DWP forces them to do it via the UC platform and HMRC forms the impression that they have actually claimed UC.
We have a client in exactly that situation, [edit: except they were actually told by DWP to make a UC claim, which then killed their tax credits]; they are winding their way through a complaints procedure. My question had in mind the amount of extra-statutory compensation the client might consider asking for.
[ Edited: 8 Jun 2018 at 04:59 pm by Jon (CANY) ]So I think it will only affect managed migration.
If so, then people with savings were always an exception to the “no one will lose out at the point of transfer” mantra.
I have a client who has just gone to UC from IS. Was getting SDP in IS. Her income has now dropped and she is using foodbanks.
Work coach told client that he had put her on the no work-related requirements group and she would not need fit notes or a WCA. This happened after the client broke down in the JC. I imagine the work coach used some discretion.
She has now asked for this new SDP and has been told in order to get the new SDP in her UC she will now need a WCA and start to submit fit notes.
Does this sound right? I presume these two things aren’t tied and she would have needed to be assessed at some point anyway? UC told her that in order to get the SDP she would now need fit notes and a WCA
[ Edited: 8 Jun 2018 at 12:09 pm by JAS1 ]I have a client who has just gone to UC from IS. Was getting SDP in IS. Her income has now dropped and she is using foodbanks.
Work coach told client that he had put her on the no work-related requirements group and she would not need fit notes or a WCA. This happened after the client broke down in the JC. I imagine the work coach used some discretion.
She has now asked for this new SDP and has been told in order to get the new SDP in her UC she will now need a WCA and start to submit fit notes.
Does this sound right? I presume these two things aren’t tied and she would have needed to be assessed at some point anyway? UC told her that in order to get the SDP she would now need fit notes and a WCA
As at today, your client cannot get the SDP; it doesn’t exist.
What your client is being invited to do is to follow the process to be treated as having LCW / LCWRA - if she is found to have LCWRA then she will at least get some partial compensation for the reduction in benefit.
As to the stuff in the announcement above - who knows? The statement is of broad policy intent and there is no real information about how this will apply on the ground.
Cheers Elliot. I understand, I will tell her to follow normal procedure with fit notes and wait for her WCA and then news on this compensation payment. About all she can do I guess.
[ Edited: 8 Jun 2018 at 03:10 pm by JAS1 ]In a twitter response today to a question on the timescale for bringing in the changes and possible use of powers to not accept certain categories of claims, Universal Credit Director General Neil Couling has said -
We need the regulations which are off to SSAC shortly. I don’t think Reg 4 can be used in the way suggested here and by colleagues on Rightsnet. See Reg4(1) for where it can be used.
In what way does Reg 4(1) bar its use in this situation I wonder?
SoS has got to consider it necessary to safeguard the efficient administration of UC…to cease to accept claims…in any category of case…
That is a fairly stretchable definition. UC is not working for this category of people because it’s robbing them of money, a matter which the DWP has previously denied, untruthfully.
I withhold his Thank-You cards on this occasion until he explains matters rather better.
You could then post his thank you here - he is obviously reading about UC problems here!
I have a client who is about to move house from no UC area into a UC full service area. Currently they are on legacy benefits (ESA) with an award of SDP. Does this mean that when they move they can now remain on ESA rather than a change to UC?
I have a client who is about to move house from no UC area into a UC full service area. Currently they are on legacy benefits (ESA) with an award of SDP. Does this mean that when they move they can now remain on ESA rather than a change to UC?
I think the answer is - ‘Who Knows?’ I assume the details will reach us…eventually…..
I have a client who is about to move house from no UC area into a UC full service area. Currently they are on legacy benefits (ESA) with an award of SDP. Does this mean that when they move they can now remain on ESA rather than a change to UC?
I think the answer is - ‘Who Knows?’ I assume the details will reach us…eventually…..
Ehhh, it’s confusing. I’m going to ask you the same question when I see you tomorrow. ;)
Elliot (back to the post on 8th June)..not sure if I’m missing the point but….
I know SDP no longer exists but on migration you would need to be on PIP, live alone etc to receive it
Why do you have to prove LCW/LCWRA to get the payment to compensate for loss of SDP? Surely you would just have to show you were eligible for SDP at point of migration (natural or otherwise)
Elliot (back to the post on 8th June)..not sure if I’m missing the point but….
I know SDP no longer exists but on migration you would need to be on PIP, live alone etc to receive it
Why do you have to prove LCW/LCWRA to get the payment to compensate for loss of SDP? Surely you would just have to show you were eligible for SDP at point of migration (natural or otherwise)
“Compensate” was probably not the right word. I have no insight at all into who will or won’t be “compensated” as a result of this announcement. I gratefully adopt Andrew’s blanket answer to all questions you might have. “Who knows?”.
What I meant is that JAS1’s client in particular would have been getting assorted premiums under IS which no longer exist on UC - however because they were on IS, there would have been no extra award for LCW/LCWRA. Their client was being invited to ask for an assessment in the hopes of maximising their income and cushioning the blow they would have felt on migration.