Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

working age hb couple reach pension age after 15.05.19

 < 1 2 3 4 > 

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 745

Joined: 27 February 2019

You are correct. The earlier query from seand contained two cases - yours is the second case, and we were discussing the first.

Jon Blackwell
forum member

Programmer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program, Brighton

Send message

Total Posts: 499

Joined: 18 June 2010

Charles - 10 May 2019 11:06 AM

You are correct. The earlier query from seand contained two cases - yours is the second case, and we were discussing the first.

Ah - OK - thanks for clarifying.

 

Tim Blackwell
forum member

Developer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program

Send message

Total Posts: 30

Joined: 16 June 2010

New commencement order. Issued last night. Sighs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/935/made

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 455

Joined: 13 December 2010

Tim Blackwell - 15 May 2019 07:30 AM

New commencement order. Issued last night. Sighs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/935/made

Gremlins never do their dirty work in plain sight or daylight, I feel a circular will be following that, tonight?

Tina M
forum member

Benefits team - Stoke-on-Trent Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 38

Joined: 26 July 2010

Tim Blackwell - 15 May 2019 07:30 AM

New commencement order. Issued last night. Sighs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/935/made

Poor you - I share your pain - it is giving me a headache and I’m only a trainer

So to clarify a point - can we assume that the mixed-age couple on IR ESA who are prevented from claiming UC by the SDP gateway, will get the pensioner premium and higher pensioner premium at the couples rate?

Or does this only work if the IR ESA claimant is the younger member of the couple?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 745

Joined: 27 February 2019

This new Commencement Order is pretty clear that even if the older one is the claimant they can stay on ESA, and will therefore get the pensioner premium.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2295

Joined: 12 March 2013

I know it’s somewhat unlikely to arise in real life, but am I correct in thinking that an SDP couple whose income is too high for ESA(ir), perhaps because of pension payable to the older partner, will be subject to the working age HB regs in which there are no longer any pensioner premiums and could therefore be worse off than a couple whose income was not too high for ESA?

The premise here is that they are brand new claimants or existing claimants whose HB has terminated under Article 6, as well as having an SDP. SDP couples are rare enough at the best of times so this probably isn’t a big problem

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 745

Joined: 27 February 2019

Yes, I think you’re right. This whole thing is such a mess!

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 745

Joined: 27 February 2019

HB Anorak - 01 May 2019 01:40 PM
Charles - 01 May 2019 10:10 AM

About the 2 week run-on, I would add that even if a claimant tried to be clever and claim UC a day or two before turning pension-age, it wouldn’t help. The run-on simply allows HB to continue after a UC claim, but it is still the same HB award as before. Any other provision terminating HB will still have effect.

This is an interesting point, I am busy today but I want to come back to this with further analysis. I had thought that the two week run on would sometimes extend what would otherwise have been the natural end of the HB award. For example there is certainly an expectation that a mover leaving the LA area will get the run on without establishing unavoidable continuing liability. But maybe a pre-Rod Stewart tax preemptive run on is different because the extended award quickly comes up against another provision expressly providing for its termination.

The latest HB Adjudication Circular, in Annexe A, example 4 implies that the 2 week run-on can continue past the date the older member turns pension-age.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2295

Joined: 12 March 2013

Just want to go back to something discussed higher up the thread about the HB two-week run-on.  We were wondering whether a well-advised claimant could put in a pre-emptive UC claim a day or two before the event that would terminate his/her HB under Article 6 of the No 31 Order and thereby gain almost two weeks’ additional HB (irrespective of whether their pension income leaves any UC entitlement).

Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Circular A9/2019 support the idea that HB can indeed be extended beyond the date on which it would otherwise have terminated.  So it has official approval.

PS sorry Charles, I didn’t notice you had already said exactly the same thing!

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

this will no doubt have been answered but the more I read threads on this the more confused I get so can I check im following this?

mixed age couple.  oldest is the hb claimant.  oldest reaches sp age.  this means hb will stop and they wont have a route to get back on it (unless they have sdp’s etc)?

same scenario, younger one is hb claimant.  oldest reaches sp age.  in this case hb wouldnt end?

have i completely lost it here or is that right?  ive not had any practical examples of mixed age couples yet so trying to follow this on a theoretical basis at this point is difficult.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2295

Joined: 12 March 2013

It doesn’t make any difference who is the HB claimant: either way, when the older partner reaches SPC age, HB will terminate unless an exception applies.  Exceptions include a case where the younger partner is the claimant for IS/ESA(ir)/JSA(ib) and entitlement to one of those benefits continues after pensioner premiums and pension income are thrown into the mix.

PS I should add, I am toeing the DWP line here that simply ageing into mixed age status does indeed cause HB to terminate - that proposition is going to end in litigation quite soon I would expect.

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 834

Joined: 22 August 2013

cheers for clearing that up.

Tim Blackwell
forum member

Developer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program

Send message

Total Posts: 30

Joined: 16 June 2010

HB Anorak - 16 May 2019 04:59 PM

I know it’s somewhat unlikely to arise in real life, but am I correct in thinking that an SDP couple whose income is too high for ESA(ir), perhaps because of pension payable to the older partner, will be subject to the working age HB regs in which there are no longer any pensioner premiums and could therefore be worse off than a couple whose income was not too high for ESA?

The more I look at these commencement orders, the stupider I feel, but why does this couple come under the working age regulations if no working age benefit applies - a similar consideration comes up in specified accommodation cases where no UC is payable due to excess income?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 745

Joined: 27 February 2019

The new regs from last week inserted an Art 8 to the No 31 Commencement Order which (in paragraph (2)(b)) says to treat the pensioner as working-age for HB purposes.

EDIT TO ADD:

It is similar to the specified accommodation issue, but the amount lost here would always be quite large, because they’ll always lose 65% of the pensioner premium amount.

What DWP should have done was include another paragraph in the new Art 8, similar to the paragraph (4) they have put in, to include a pensioner premium for this case.

[ Edited: 23 May 2019 at 12:37 pm by Charles ]