Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Managed migration: Draft regs out for consultation

 1 2 3 > 

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

Jon (CHDCA)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1330

Joined: 16 June 2010

This is a minor point, but am I missing something here ...

51.—(1) A transitional capital disregard is to apply where, on the migration day, the
claimant—
(a) is entitled to an award of a tax credit; and
(b) has capital exceeding £16,000.
(2) Where a transitional capital disregard applies, any capital exceeding £16,000 is to be
disregarded for the purposes of—
(a) determining whether the financial condition in section 5(1)(a) or 5(2)(a) of the Act
(capital limit) is met; and
(b) calculating the amount of an award of universal credit (including the indicative UC
amount).

Any capital exceeding the upper capital limit is to be disregarded, rather than exceeding the lower capital limit. I guess that means that tariff income will immediately apply to the UC award from the £10K of capital between 6,000 and 16,000?

The alternative reading would be that the entirety of such capital is ignored, but that would mean that a tax credit claimant with say £1,000,000 savings would get 12 months of protection, whereas someone with only £15K of savings would not get any.

edit: the explanatory notes confirm it’s the former, i.e. those with capital who are protected will still lose up to £174pcm due to tariff income, compared to when they were on tax credits.

[ Edited: 22 Jun 2018 at 04:35 pm by Jon (CHDCA) ]
Welfare Rights Adviser
forum member

Social inclusion unit - Swansea Council

Send message

Total Posts: 161

Joined: 23 June 2010

It’s friday afternoon so I may be wrong - but isn’t UC with LCWRA for single 25+ £646.14 and ESA with SC, SDP & EDP £829.62 and the difference as I make it is £183.48 NOT £80

Where does the £80 come from?

[ Edited: 22 Jun 2018 at 04:50 pm by shawn mach ]
Gareth Morgan
forum member

Managing director - Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1763

Joined: 16 June 2010

Jon (CHDCA) - 22 June 2018 03:53 PM

those with capital who are protected will still lose up to £174pcm due to tariff income, compared to when they were on tax credits.

But any real income from the capital would have been taken into account for TCs.

Jon (CHDCA)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1330

Joined: 16 June 2010

Gareth Morgan - 22 June 2018 05:11 PM
Jon (CHDCA) - 22 June 2018 03:53 PM

those with capital who are protected will still lose up to £174pcm due to tariff income, compared to when they were on tax credits.

But any real income from the capital would have been taken into account for TCs.

Yes, though most claimants who aren’t already drawing a pension would probably struggle to break the £300pa disregard on that income.

Anyway, I think I understand the logic now. And it’s been pointed out to me, tax credit transfers who are under the capital limit will not have their protection limited to 12 months.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2011

Joined: 14 July 2014

Welfare Rights Adviser - 22 June 2018 04:12 PM

It’s friday afternoon so I may be wrong - but isn’t UC with LCWRA for single 25+ £646.14 and ESA with SC, SDP & EDP £829.62 and the difference as I make it is £183.48 NOT £80

Where does the £80 come from?

I can’t figure this out either and would be grateful if anybody has any insight!

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 812

Joined: 21 March 2016

Elliot Kent - 25 June 2018 10:42 PM
Welfare Rights Adviser - 22 June 2018 04:12 PM

It’s friday afternoon so I may be wrong - but isn’t UC with LCWRA for single 25+ £646.14 and ESA with SC, SDP & EDP £829.62 and the difference as I make it is £183.48 NOT £80

Where does the £80 come from?

I can’t figure this out either and would be grateful if anybody has any insight!

Could it be that the DWP have taken the existing higher LCWRA element in UC as already accounting for the difference between ESA wrac and support component (£8.60 weekly - £37.26 monthly) and the loss of EDP (£16.40 weekly - £66.73 monthly) (together worth around £107 a month) - if those losses are taken out of the equation it leaves around £80 loss a month purely from the failure to account for the SDP in UC.

roswhite
forum member

rightsnet

Send message

Total Posts: 3

Joined: 11 December 2017

I know CPAG has ongoing JR challenge for claimant who lost out after claiming UC whilst awaiting successful WCA appeal - will be interesting to see how that turns out -

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/universal-credit-disability-and-transitional-protection

[ Edited: 26 Jun 2018 at 10:22 am by roswhite ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2011

Joined: 14 July 2014

stuart - 26 June 2018 09:11 AM
Elliot Kent - 25 June 2018 10:42 PM
Welfare Rights Adviser - 22 June 2018 04:12 PM

It’s friday afternoon so I may be wrong - but isn’t UC with LCWRA for single 25+ £646.14 and ESA with SC, SDP & EDP £829.62 and the difference as I make it is £183.48 NOT £80

Where does the £80 come from?

I can’t figure this out either and would be grateful if anybody has any insight!

Could it be that the DWP have taken the existing higher LCWRA element in UC as already accounting for the difference between ESA wrac and support component (£8.60 weekly - £37.26 monthly) and the loss of EDP (£16.40 weekly - £66.73 monthly) (together worth around £107 a month) - if those losses are taken out of the equation it leaves around £80 loss a month purely from the failure to account for the SDP in UC.

Yes, but if we offset the gain of c. £107 against the SDP loss of c. £280, that still leaves a net loss of c. £173 which is why I’m confused by the £80 figure.

Even if we were to pretend that there was never such a thing as the EDP, so claimants straight up gain the £165 difference between ESA Support Component and UC LCWRA Element, that still leaves a £35 shortfall…

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1556

Joined: 18 June 2010

para. 107 “These are designed as a necessarily broad brush check to shadow some of the basic qualifying conditions for the SDP…”

In other words. We will deny the existance of the EDP and that claimants entitled to it will still be worse off under UC by at least £16.40 pw despite TP. We will ignore the different purposes of SDP, EDP and LCFW/LCFWRA premiums but we will trumpet that the LCFWRA element in UC is higher than in ESA. We will repeat endlessly how generous TP is and that it mitigates the loss of SDP and therefore all is well.

(1) ESA claimant, single, 25+ in WRAG with PIP ERDL

ESA = 73.10 + 29.05 + 64.30 + 16.40 = 182.85

UC = 317.82 + 126.11 + 280 (TP) = 723.93 = 166.60 pw

loss 16.25 pw.


(2) as above but in SG:

ESA = 73.10 + 37.65 + 64.30 + 16.40 = 191.45

UC = 317.82 + 328.32 + 80.00 (TP) = 726.14 = 167.11 pw

loss = 24.34


(but its to hot for my brain to function today)

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3244

Joined: 14 April 2010

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1708

Joined: 12 October 2012

Spending a fun day looking at Regs and explanatory notes.

Some thoughts:

The Migration Notice
This is not a transfer of a claim to a new system, it is a command to make a brand new claim, to provide supporting evidence etc even when the claimant has been on benefits a long time an there has been no change in their circumstances.

It’s the same claim-it-or-lose-everything approach that was used with PIP – and the ones who may suffer? The most vulnerable.

Standards of communication
Depending upon their content, the ‘generic information’ letters and Migration Notices may cause panic and confusion. We need to see their content and comment upon it in detail, especially given the needs of the much wider scope of claimants that will be affected.

Given the poor standard of some DWP decision letters – e.g. the misleading ESA assessments people are still receiving and the evidence-and-law-free decision notices issued under full service UC, how can we be sure that communications about the move to UC will be comprehensible or that they will be correct?

Timing
I can’t quite reconcile the DWP claim (in the Explanatory Memo) that the system will be tested and ready by July 2019 with the statement in the NAO report that managed migration needs to have the enabling legislation laid down first (due in the autumn, which could mean Nov-Dec) then 12 months of testing.

What provision is there for making sure that the mop-up of IRESA underpayments is complete before all this takes place? What if it drags on?

Similarly for the review of those incorrectly refused PIP?

The workload on DWP staff must be considerable as well. I wonder if this has been properly factored in?

The precedents in terms of timing and completion dates are scarcely inspiring – cf. the move from IS to CTC, and that from IB to ESA.

Compexity and standards of communications
The calculations for TP appear to be very complex.

How will claimants be notified, and how will they know that the figures put to them are correct?

NB as above the poor standard of current UC decision notices and that of the information provided to IB-to-ESA claimants who never knew they were being underpaid until a certain small scandal broke. Inaccurate and sometimes downright strange ESA letters are still going out.

Disabled students
The measures in the Regs appear merely to postpone the problem of lack of entitlement under UC and to create two-tier entitlement– the fact is that the law needs to be changed as it is simply unreasonable.

I am also perturbed at the return of the fell phrase ‘test and learn’. Should DWP be testing and learning at this stage? Should they not be sure what they are doing? And, please, no-one say ‘agile’ or I shall scream.

Where 14 pages of Regulations require 50 pages of explanation, are we in trouble?

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1556

Joined: 18 June 2010

Andrew -  my thoughts exactly - response already drafted in similar terms (I had a quite day and growing incredulity as I read).

Claimants weren’t required to make ‘new’ claims when they were transferred from Supp Ben to IS. They were deemed to have made a claim [IS(T)Reg. 4 - there is always a reason to keep S&M!]. Making the claimant claim UC can only be justified as a way of saving DWP the cost of transferring the data (claimants could set up their on-line account once DWP had transferred the data - like initiating on-line account management for a bank /or utility account etc). That would avoid the most vulnerable ending up with no UC, reduced demand on other organisations for support with the process etc. But as we all know the DWP’s approch to vulnerabilty under UC is ........

Damo
forum member

Welfare support team - Bath & N E Somerset Council

Send message

Total Posts: 20

Joined: 4 September 2013

Only 54% reported that they were able to claim UC online without help - so they decide to make everyone claim it?

lost in Granite
forum member

Training and Appeals team, glasgow city council welfare rights

Send message

Total Posts: 59

Joined: 11 March 2015

I have been looking at these draft regulations this morning and like those who have gone before I was a wee bit puzzled by the £80/£280/£360 figures (Regulation 63). I have no quibbles with the previous posted calculations but it occurs to me that what we are getting confused by is that Reg 63 addresses the issue of natural migration.

Those who a are subject to managed migration will have their TP calculated on the basis of regulation 53 and the TP should be whatever it calculates out at, for single persons who are LCWRA that would be

ESA calculation: 73.1+37.65+16.4+64.3 = 191.45 *52/12 = 829.62

UC calculation: 317.82 + 328.32 = 646.14 I calculated on over 25 and single

Difference £183.48
so TP would be £183.48

I am sure I am missing something.

Dani Ahrens
forum member

Welfare Rights Team, Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project

Send message

Total Posts: 16

Joined: 7 September 2017

I think you are right, lost in granite, thank you for spotting that.

But doesn’t this make it even worse? People who have already moved over to UC and lost their SDP entitlement by the time these new regs come into force will only get £80/£280/£360 per month (assuming it comes to the attention of the Secretary of State that they exist), but people who are still on ESA will get proper transitional protection and won’t lose out.

Is that how everyone else is reading it?