Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Horrendous mixed-age couple scenario, please help
It is not clear if Art 6 will terminate the HB claim. It’s possible to argue for either or both of Art. 6(2)(a) and 6(2)(b) to apply, but I’m not certain. Of course, that won’t help you to keep the ESA claim going.
If HB does not end, depending on the level of her pension, it could be worth staying on HB and not claiming UC. From the calculation you’ve attached, you seem to be working with a pension of £164/week. At that level, I make them slightly better off not claiming UC.**
It could be useful for the son to move out temporarily, as Unhindered suggests. However, the idea would be to use that period with an SDP to allow him to claim ESA (PC is definitely not an option).
** UC maximum amount before housing costs: £498.89+£336.20+£160.20=£995.29 (£229.68 weekly).
SP+CA: £164+£66.15=£230.15 weekly.
I’ve got an approximate £10 a week loss Charles.
ESA entitlement weekly 2019/20
• Personal allowance £114.85 couple rate
• Support component £38.55
• Carer element £36.85
• Carer element £36.85
• Enhanced disability premium £24.10
• Total applicable amount - £251.20
• Lees income ££132.30 (two times CA of £66.15)
• ESA payable £118.90 a week
With £72 HB (obviously this figure might go up from 6 April 2019), that makes an overall weekly income total of £323.20 (ESA, HB, two lots of CA).
UC entitlement monthly 2019/20 from 6 July 2019, State Pension (SP) £164 a week
• Standard amount £498.89 couple rate
• LCWRA element £336.20 (payable to wife due to DLA HRC)
• Carer element £160.20 (payable to husband due to CA)
• Housing element £366.16 (based on rent of £84.50p/w)
• Total applicable amount £1361.45
• Less income £997.31 (£710.66 State Pension and CA £66.15)
• UC payable £364.14
Weekly UC is therefore £83.80 (£364.14 multiplied by 12, divided by 365, multiplied by 7).
This makes an overall weekly income total of £313.95 (UC, SP, CA), so a loss of approximately £10 a week overall on these sums.
I’m off for weekend now but might come back with questions about your comments on Article 6 and the HB as that’s what they want to do if possible i.e. stay on HB.
It’s also proving tricky to factor in effect of CTS as that has implications in light of the other thread which suggests that MAC’s claiming UC are on working age CTS schemes, whereas MAC’s who don’t claim UC (or IS/JSA/ESA) can continue to claim under default CTS scheme which is invariably more generous.
Thanks all for your thoughts, most appreciated, enjoy your weekends :-)
It is not clear if Art 6 will terminate the HB claim…
I think this is somewhere where we really need more clarity. I know you’ve pushed DWP on this but I’m still not at all sure whether they’ve actually understood your questions about Art 6. The guidance published so far doesn’t help - the example they give of ‘becoming a mixed-age couple’ is where a new partnership is formed - it doesn’t look at simply aging into mixed-age status. Waking up one morning and discovering you’ve been kicked off HB and are now in UC-world seems like un-natural migration.
Suppose the plan to temporarily move the non-dep out works (so they get their SDP-shield up and can avoid UC), is it possible that the husband could then claim IS as a carer? That could be ~ £10/wk higher than ESA(IR) because of the difference between SC and DP(couple)?
I’ve got an approximate £10 a week loss Charles.
ESA entitlement weekly 2019/20
• Personal allowance £114.85 couple rate
• Support component £38.55
• Carer element £36.85
• Carer element £36.85
• Enhanced disability premium £24.10
• Total applicable amount - £251.20
• Lees income ££132.30 (two times CA of £66.15)
• ESA payable £118.90 a weekWith £72 HB (obviously this figure might go up from 6 April 2019), that makes an overall weekly income total of £323.20 (ESA, HB, two lots of CA).
UC entitlement monthly 2019/20 from 6 July 2019, State Pension (SP) £164 a week
• Standard amount £498.89 couple rate
• LCWRA element £336.20 (payable to wife due to DLA HRC)
• Carer element £160.20 (payable to husband due to CA)
• Housing element £366.16 (based on rent of £84.50p/w)
• Total applicable amount £1361.45
• Less income £997.31 (£710.66 State Pension and CA £66.15)
• UC payable £364.14Weekly UC is therefore £83.80 (£364.14 multiplied by 12, divided by 365, multiplied by 7).
This makes an overall weekly income total of £313.95 (UC, SP, CA), so a loss of approximately £10 a week overall on these sums.
Sorry if I wasn’t being clear, I wasn’t making this comparison in my post. I was comparing staying on HB without ESA to claiming UC. But yes, compared to ESA they’re definitely worse off on UC. Once you iron out the issues with the HB, this’ll only be worse, as they should seemingly be getting around £12 more per week.
It’s also proving tricky to factor in effect of CTS as that has implications in light of the other thread which suggests that MAC’s claiming UC are on working age CTS schemes, whereas MAC’s who don’t claim UC (or IS/JSA/ESA) can continue to claim under default CTS scheme which is invariably more generous.
Agree with this. CTS would be an extra advantage if they could stay off UC. On most (all?) schemes, having no earned income, they would get the maximum level of CTS for working-age people, but of course that’s usually a lot less than the maximum for pensioners.
Hope you enjoyed your weekend!
I think this is somewhere where we really need more clarity. I know you’ve pushed DWP on this but I’m still not at all sure whether they’ve actually understood your questions about Art 6. The guidance published so far doesn’t help - the example they give of ‘becoming a mixed-age couple’ is where a new partnership is formed - it doesn’t look at simply aging into mixed-age status. Waking up one morning and discovering you’ve been kicked off HB and are now in UC-world seems like un-natural migration.
Yup, I agree with this. I’d be horrified if in fact it turns out people who age into mixed-age status are migrated with no TP.
Suppose the plan to temporarily move the non-dep out works (so they get their SDP-shield up and can avoid UC), is it possible that the husband could then claim IS as a carer? That could be ~ £10/wk higher than ESA(IR) because of the difference between SC and DP(couple)?
Excellent idea. The financial gain would only be short-term, because it’d only be until she turns pension-age, but there are other advantages: no WCA needed (with the possibility of failing it) and no assessment phase.
Just for completeness, we discovered that short HB payment was due to bedroom tax (d’oh!!) and obviously that piece of joy carries across to UC as well.
Outcome being that they’re some £23 a week worse off when they need to claim UC and stop claiming ESA, when the only change of circumstances is her reaching state pension age.
This is also a loss of over £110 a week if they’d have been able to claim Pension Credit and Housing Benefit (which wouldn’t have bedroom tax of course so full passporting).
I’d love it if Mr Couling could come along and justify how this is a natural change of circumstances and the client should regard reaching state pension age, or retirement age as my mum would have it, and her reward is to have her benefits subject to a further cut. Especially when they’re both disabled and both caring for each other.
I don’t understand why, if they could get SDP prior to turning pension age, they couldn’t claim Pension Credit & HB given that they would have the SDP gateway condition allowaing them to claim legacy benefits? I know you are wiser heads than me so it would be helpful for me to know the thinking.
Pension credit is being closed off completely to mixed-age couples. So even SDP recipients and frontier workers cannot claim it.
Pension credit is being closed off completely to mixed-age couples. So even SDP recipients and frontier workers cannot claim it.
Ah, thank you. I wasn’t aware that the gateway condition didn’t apply to Pension Credit.
I don’t understand why, if they could get SDP prior to turning pension age, they couldn’t claim Pension Credit & HB given that they would have the SDP gateway condition allowaing them to claim legacy benefits? I know you are wiser heads than me so it would be helpful for me to know the thinking.
They aren’t getting SDP in this case due to son in household. If he could move out, and we could manufacture inclusion of SDP then they might have a chance but that doesn’t seem like an option in this case unfortunately.
I don’t understand why, if they could get SDP prior to turning pension age, they couldn’t claim Pension Credit & HB given that they would have the SDP gateway condition allowaing them to claim legacy benefits? I know you are wiser heads than me so it would be helpful for me to know the thinking.
They aren’t getting SDP in this case due to son in household. If he could move out, and we could manufacture inclusion of SDP then they might have a chance but that doesn’t seem like an option in this case unfortunately.
Yes, it was my suggestion that the son could move out for a while to enable SDP and a legacy benefit claim but if those aren’t options it looks like you’re stuck with a bad situation
They aren’t getting SDP in this case due to son in household. If he could move out, and we could manufacture inclusion of SDP then they might have a chance but that doesn’t seem like an option in this case unfortunately
Did you manage to find out if their HB will survive the change to mixed-couple status?
I calculate that they’ll be slightly better off financially, but more importantly, it allows them to avoid UC.
There is also the advantage that if one day SDP does become an option, they’ll still be on HB (which can include an SDP), so will then be able to claim IS/ESA, which gives them most of the advantages of PC.
I calculate that they’ll be slightly better off financially, but more importantly, it allows them to avoid UC.
There is also the advantage that if one day SDP does become an option, they’ll still be on HB (which can include an SDP), so will then be able to claim IS/ESA, which gives them most of the advantages of PC.
If they shut the ESA claim down before 15 May 2019 and went HB only, aren’t they going to fall foul of Art.6(2)(b) - they’re going to become a MAC from 6 July, so until that time, the HB award must be on working age rules, therefore will terminate once she reaches SPa?
I think 6(2)(b) only applies if a couple who are already mixed-age have a working-age HB award. Furthermore, the wording used suggests the original award of HB has to be made to them as a mixed-age couple.
Both of those, if correct, would stop it applying to your clients’ case.
Ok, i think i see a bit more where you’re coming from here.
(2) The awards are those where entitlement under the Housing Benefit SPC Regulations as part of a mixed-age couple begins on or after the appointed day and where the awards are made at any time under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, to a person who is a member of a mixed-age couple, where the award subsequently ceases to be subject to those Regulations and becomes subject to the Housing Benefit SPC Regulations
The entitlement under HB SPC Regs as part of MAC begins after appointed day (yes it does, 6 July), and where the awards [sic] are made at any time under the HB Regs 2006 (they must have been as they aren’t able to claim under HB SPC Regs prior to 6 July) to a person who is a member of a MAC (this is the obvious pressure point as the HB Regs 2006 award isn’t to a MAC until 6 July) where the award ceases to be subject to those Regulations (6 July) and becomes subject to HB SPC Regs (6 July).
Wouldn;t the interpretation be that, although they weren’t a MAC claiming HB prior to 6 July, on that date they do become a MAC, the HB award on that day was still on HB Regs 2006 rules but should switch to SPC Regs and therefore that’s when the award must stop i.e. 6 July.