× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Benefits for older people  →  Thread

Mixed age couples and the disdvantages of UC vs PC

 1 2 > 

Sarah-B
forum member

Caseworker - Laura Pidcock MP

Send message

Total Posts: 71

Joined: 4 July 2018

This may already have been done, but please help me get clear in my head what are all the negatives about the introduction of UC for mixed age couples vs them being able to claim PC or pension-age HB:

- the much less generous personal allowances
- no SDP
- no ability to have LCWRA and also Carers for same person in couple
- bedroom tax
- pension income is £ of £ (HB is more generous)
- potential conditionality for working age person
- double whammy for WASPI women

What have I missed?

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Off the top of my head…

Older partner needing to make online claim and maintain online journal even though they are exempt from work related conditionality.
Potentially subject to benefit cap, as well as bedroom tax.
Loss of entitlement to CTS under default scheme, meaning they’ll be claiming under working age scheme which is inevitably less generous.
Loss of passporting to health benefits and potentially CWP’s.
Loss of Warm Home Discount.
Loss of entitlement to utility deals for PC recipients, for eg Bristol Water and Wessex Water offer 20 per cent discounts from your water bill if you receive Pension Credit.United Utilities can limit bills to customers receiving Pension Credit and struggling to pay at £250.
No savings provisions so single day on non-entitlement means you’re thrown off PC with no way back, so actively disincentivises younger partner from trying to work for example.
Complex issues to do with savings as PC has deemed income for capital over £10,000 - if entitled to PC, you can have in excess of £16k and also be entitled to HB, deliberately to encourage people to save for their retirement. Now they’ll have nil entitlement to UC.
For couples only looking for assistance with rental costs, the younger partner will now be subject to full conditionality if they claim UC, whereas previously, they could simply claim HB without a problem.

There is also a significant problem for people moving from UC to PC but this isn’t exclusive to MAC’s - however, for anyone who doesn’t make a PC claim in advance, they have to go through a very convoluted process currently of making PC claim, once entitlement sorted and first payment made, they get instruction from Pension Service to close UC claim down. This can result in recovery of all UC paid that overlaps with PC payment, including housing element. However, on the housing side, local authorities are refusing to process HB claims whilst UC claim still live. Not clear how this is working out in practice, we’re just helping first cohort of clients with this.

Sarah-B
forum member

Caseworker - Laura Pidcock MP

Send message

Total Posts: 71

Joined: 4 July 2018

Cheers Paul …  its so bad

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

And another - two child rule applies in UC but not in pension credit

What else have the Romans, sorry DWP, done for us?....

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1995

Joined: 16 June 2010

Notional pension income from untaken pension savings.  Although this is a PC rule, that’s taken into UC for the older partner, the consequences may be more severe.  The income will have more effect in many cases as the entitlement is lower.  It’s likely that many people who intended to leave their pension savings in place will now be unable to do so, causing financial problems in the future.  I’m doing a fair bit of modelling on the financial consequences for MA couples at the moment including ways of quantifying shortfalls over future periods.

[ Edited: 1 May 2019 at 06:01 pm by Gareth Morgan ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Can we also compile a list of advantages of UC over PC for balance?

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Elliot Kent - 01 May 2019 11:49 AM

Can we also compile a list of advantages of UC over PC for balance?

#tumbleweed

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

Elliot Kent - 01 May 2019 11:49 AM

Can we also compile a list of advantages of UC over PC for balance?

Support for mortgage interest loan can cover up to £200K for working age, instead of £100K for PC (I think that’s still the case?) though that’s a very niche scenario.

Some transactional issues may be seen as advantages, eg no need to regularly report variable earnings because RTI does it for you.

Ummm ..

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

There are many cases where working claimants are better off on UC, due to the work allowance, taper rate and childcare costs element of UC.

A couple of simple examples:
1. A couple with a child, no housing costs, and earnings of over £210/week.
2. A couple with entitlement to the LCWRA element, and earnings of over £75/week.

Jon (CHDCA) - 01 May 2019 11:45 PM

Support for mortgage interest loan can cover up to £200K for working age, instead of £100K for PC (I think that’s still the case?) though that’s a very niche scenario.

I think that would at most be worth an extra £50/week (even disregarding the fact that it’s a loan), still leaving PC as the better buy. Even if there is also entitlement to the LCWRA element, PC is still better.

[ Edited: 2 May 2019 at 04:47 am by Charles ]
Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks Charles, quite right and my comment here was too flippant.

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 365

Joined: 17 June 2010

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.

Say there’s a mixed age couple who are not SDP claimants. The older partner, who is on PIP/DLA, reaches pension age after 15th May. In my scenario they are on irESA claimed by the older partner; younger partner is on CA. (I know younger partner could be on IS instead of older claiming irESA, but just assume they’re not for the purposes of this question & don’t come for advice until after 15.5.19).

The older partner can no longer claim ESA on reaching pension age, so this stops. They have no option but to claim UC. Depending on the rate of the older partner’s retirement pension, and whether there are any eligible housing costs, it’s entirely possible no UC is payable.

However, my question is actually about the LCWRA element. Does this appear in the UC calculation under reg 19 UC(TP) Regs as it would with any other couple? I can’t see anything preventing it from doing so.

However, nor can I see anything preventing the older partner from being reassessed. The government have talked about stopping reassessments for pension age PIP claimants, but not (AFAIK) mentioned WCAs, because, of course, until recently it simply wouldn’t have applied.

Unless I’m missing something, this could result in someone who doesn’t have to be available for work or meet any work-related responsibilities due to their age having to potentially attend a WCA in order to make sure they don’t lose out on UC.

I’m hoping that either (a) I’m missing something or (b) the mooted further amending regs mentioned elsewhere might address this.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

A couple of points:

1. Reg 19 only applies if there is entitlement to ESA “on the date on which the claim for universal credit was made”. Upon turning pension-age, entitlement will have ended. This means reg 19 will only apply in your case if they claim UC prior to turning pension-age. That will not normally be the case.

2. Being entitled to PIP is enough for a pensioner to be treated as having LCW for UC. Entitlement to the daily living component of PIP at the enhanced rate is enough for them to be treated as having LCWRA. This will be enough for many people in this situation.

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 365

Joined: 17 June 2010

Thank you Charles.

You’re right of course that practically, few people are going to claim UC at a point where they are still entitled to income-related ESA - though some might as they will have been informed about the working age benefit ending.

More importantly I was hoping I must be missing something and that is it - the last para in Sched 9 (which I should have checked before posting).

As you say it will be enough for many people, but there will be some who had LCWRA (or at least LCW) and not PIP/DLA… I suppose then we will need to look at potential AA claims (if applicable) in order to avoid people missing out further.

[ Edited: 13 May 2019 at 09:46 am by WillH ]
Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

WillH - 13 May 2019 09:02 AM

You’re right of course that practically, few people are going to claim UC immediately their working age benefits end.

I think it’s even slightly more than that: Even people who claim on the day they turn pension-age (which is what most people would advise them to do) will not benefit from reg 19!

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 365

Joined: 17 June 2010

Yes - think we overlapped - I edited my post for that reason! But you’re right they would need to have been correctly advised to claim in advance of the old style ESA ending, which could easily get missed.

The other thing which concerns me is that the ‘treated as’ provision only applies to those on AA, highest rate care DLA or enhanced DL of PIP.

I can see a lot of people losing out (and indeed not being entitled to any UC) due to not getting the LCWRA element as a result.

[ Edited: 13 May 2019 at 09:46 am by WillH ]
Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1411

Joined: 27 February 2019

WillH - 13 May 2019 09:42 AM

I can see a lot of people losing out (and indeed not being entitled to any UC) due to not getting the LCWRA element as a result.

Yes, agreed.