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 > 

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2252

Joined: 7 January 2016

Jon Blackwell - 09 May 2019 02:03 PM

That’s how I read it. They’ll continue to fall under the working age regs so it can’t be an award that gets terminated by Art 6(2).  Worryingly , I’ve heard a rumour that at least one major HB system will automatically terminate HB when the older member of the couple reaches pension age after 15 May in all cases - including where a working-age IRB remains in place.

We’ve heard from RSL that this is now happening, i.e. MAC with younger partner claiming legacy benefit and HB, having the latter routinely stopped when older partner reaches SPA. What a mess.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2252

Joined: 7 January 2016

We have a couple, wife was working but had to stop due to accident, she claims State Pension and small occupational pension, he claims ESA and PIP (EDL/ERM) as well as HB/CTS.

If the ESA is contributory as i suspect, does the HB award satisfy the Article 4(1) savings provisions, meaning that they should be able to make a new Pension Credit claim? Does it matter for how long they’ve claimed it or who claimed it, or does reg.5 of HB(SPC) regs mean that this must be pension-age HB award?

Any thoughts gratefully received.

etc: Are they a para.5 example as per A9/2019?

Existing HB claimants: over pension age on 15 May 2019
6. Mixed age couples who are receiving HB assessed under SI 2006/214 on 14 May 2019 remain entitled to HB unless there is a relevant change in circumstances which ends their HB claim.

[ Edited: 28 Oct 2019 at 04:37 pm by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]
HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2297

Joined: 12 March 2013

It probably is contribution based ESA: if wife worked more than 24 hours a week that would prevent ESA(ir) and it is almost certain that combined amount of pensions and wages would have been too high in any case.  They can make a new SPC claim if they have been on HB since before 15 May without husband having any working age means tested DWP benefit.

If there has been ESA(ir) entitlement at any time since immediately before 15 May, that will break the transitional protection for SPC because HB only protects SPC if it is continuously administered under the HB(SPC) Regs.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2252

Joined: 7 January 2016

HB Anorak - 28 October 2019 04:54 PM

It probably is contribution based ESA: if wife worked more than 24 hours a week that would prevent ESA(ir) and it is almost certain that combined amount of pensions and wages would have been too high in any case.  They can make a new SPC claim if they have been on HB since before 15 May without husband having any working age means tested DWP benefit.

If there has been ESA(ir) entitlement at any time since immediately before 15 May, that will break the transitional protection for SPC because HB only protects SPC if it is continuously administered under the HB(SPC) Regs.

That’s what I was thinking (and hoping).

Thanks for the prompt response Peter, much appreciated :-)

Billy
forum member

Welfare rights - Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 64

Joined: 19 July 2011

Hi can anybody offer any words of wisdom, posting for a colleague ,  ( good or bad as problem needs resolving and not ending in off ) . The situation we have is that we have a MAC with the older partner reaching retirement age on 06/09/19. The HB department paid HB until the following Sunday 08/09/19.

Situation was Pre 06/09/19 ( a Friday )

Joint IS
2 X Carers Allowance
2 x relevant DLA/PIP
HB
CTS

Sept after 06/09/18

RP received
CA not paid but premium OK
1 x CA
2 X relevant DLA/PIP
HB ( inc SDP from 06/09/19 )
CTS

They tried to make a claim for UC on 07/09/19 ( a Saturday )  but unable to as SDP in HB.
Cant claim PC due to age rules
DWP wont accept IS claim as a carer.

Any help appreciated. I have tried to follow the threads but end up arguing with myself ha ha.

Billy

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2252

Joined: 7 January 2016

Income Support claim should continue Billy. See A9/2019 Circular

Mixed age couple in receipt of HB and other legacy benefit including SDP, older member of the couple is lead claimant

Where a working age couple are in receipt of a DWP legacy benefit and working age HB and the older member of the couple is the lead claimant of the DWP legacy benefit and is approaching State Pension age, DWP will check the benefits that the claimant is entitled to and contact the claimant. If the claimant is in receipt of SDP or they have been in receipt of SDP within the month prior to reaching State Pension age, then the mixed age couple will continue to receive the legacy benefits that they are in receipt of, including working age HB. These claims will be maintained clerically within DWP so there will be no data sharing for these claimants through ATLAS. If there is a change of circumstances that will impact the HB claim the claimant will be signposted to the LA to report their change. The mixed age couple will remain on legacy benefit whilst they continue to be in receipt of SDP with their legacy benefits.

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 455

Joined: 13 December 2010

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 22 November 2019 01:16 PM

Income Support claim should continue Billy. See A9/2019 Circular

Mixed age couple in receipt of HB and other legacy benefit including SDP, older member of the couple is lead claimant

Where a working age couple are in receipt of a DWP legacy benefit and working age HB and the older member of the couple is the lead claimant of the DWP legacy benefit and is approaching State Pension age, DWP will check the benefits that the claimant is entitled to and contact the claimant. If the claimant is in receipt of SDP or they have been in receipt of SDP within the month prior to reaching State Pension age, then the mixed age couple will continue to receive the legacy benefits that they are in receipt of, including working age HB. These claims will be maintained clerically within DWP so there will be no data sharing for these claimants through ATLAS. If there is a change of circumstances that will impact the HB claim the claimant will be signposted to the LA to report their change. The mixed age couple will remain on legacy benefit whilst they continue to be in receipt of SDP with their legacy benefits.

Unless the SRP extinguished I/S? Really doesn’t matter, HB should still remain in payment.

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2297

Joined: 12 March 2013

I think we need to know who is/was the claimant for (1) IS and (2) HB.  The end result should still be that they remain entitled to working age legacy benefits (subject to pension income) but the precise route by which they get there depends on who has the claimant role.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 747

Joined: 27 February 2019

What suprises me is that an SDP was included in the HB award from 6/9.

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2297

Joined: 12 March 2013

Charles - 24 November 2019 10:02 PM

What suprises me is that an SDP was included in the HB award from 6/9.

You’re thinking HB should have terminated under Article 6(2)(b) - without the SDP having a chance to crystallise?

I was going to say that a superseding decision could have been made under D&A Reg 8(14) from the exact day on which the older partner reached SPC age on account of him her having become entitled to a “relevant benefit” (SRP) - which would have brought the SDP into play before HB had a chance to terminate.  But this has set me thinking about a much wider issue affecting the whole “ageing into” mixed age status debate.

The way I read Article 6(2)(b),  status quo ante is an award to a mixed age couple under the working age regs.  That award then terminates at the point when the HB(SPC) Regs would apply to it.  We have previously discussed how this just about works if reaching SPC age has effect as a change of circs, because there will be part week in which the couple is a mixed age couple still subject to the working age HB Regs.  But what if there is a same day superseding decision under Reg 8(14) in any case where SRP is awarded?  That means you never have that part week under the working age regs and HB would not terminate - this doesn’t require an SDP, all it requires is an award of SRP.

The alternative argument is that we shouldn’t read Article 6(2)(b) too carefully, it is trying to say that HB terminates as soon as the HB (SPC) Regs apply so just accept it.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 747

Joined: 27 February 2019

HB Anorak - 25 November 2019 08:42 AM

I was going to say that a superseding decision could have been made under D&A Reg 8(14) from the exact day on which the older partner reached SPC age on account of him her having become entitled to a “relevant benefit” (SRP) - which would have brought the SDP into play before HB had a chance to terminate.

Hmm. I had assumed the decision to include the SDP would be made due to the change of circumstances regarding the payability of Carer’s Allowance. This would then only take effect from the following Monday.

How wide is the power in D&A Regs 7(2)(i) & 8(14)?

But this has set me thinking about a much wider issue affecting the whole “ageing into” mixed age status debate.

The way I read Article 6(2)(b),  status quo ante is an award to a mixed age couple under the working age regs.  That award then terminates at the point when the HB(SPC) Regs would apply to it.  We have previously discussed how this just about works if reaching SPC age has effect as a change of circs, because there will be part week in which the couple is a mixed age couple still subject to the working age HB Regs.  But what if there is a same day superseding decision under Reg 8(14) in any case where SRP is awarded?  That means you never have that part week under the working age regs and HB would not terminate - this doesn’t require an SDP, all it requires is an award of SRP.

The alternative argument is that we shouldn’t read Article 6(2)(b) too carefully, it is trying to say that HB terminates as soon as the HB (SPC) Regs apply so just accept it.

I think your last line is probably correct! I anyway never really liked the “MAC is under the working-age Regs for a part week” explanation, as it still doesn’t explain the wording “where the awards are made ... to a person who is a member of a mixed-age couple”.

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2297

Joined: 12 March 2013

With such a major event as becoming a pensioner you are likely to find more than one available ground for supersession.  Most obviously simply reaching that age affects the applicable amount and is a change of circumstance, so the ground would be Reg 7A(4) with an effective date of the following Monday under Reg 8(2).  Or the commencement of state retirement pension could be relied on as a “relevant benefit” - Reg 7(2)(i) and 8(14).  In the case discussed most recently in this thread there is a third possibility - the suppression of carers allowance, which is also a change of circumstance.  I cannot see that any of these necessarily trumps the others - it seems you can take your pick.

There is a clear policy intention behind Reg 8(14): it is dealing with the mischief whereby an award of PIP etc made in arrears cannot satisfy the time limit in Reg 8(3), and there is a linked “any-time” ground for revision which tackles the case where arrears of PIP etc reach back before the date of the current operative HB decision.  But the drafting of the regulation is not so restrictive

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 747

Joined: 27 February 2019

But could it be restricted to a change in the award which happens as a direct result of the relevant benefit? Here, the commencement of state pension only indirectly causes SDP to be included.
What about a case where a totally unrelated change happens - for example, a claimant becomes responsible for a child in the same benefit week as turning pension-age?

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2297

Joined: 12 March 2013

Any of these events occurring in isolation would warrant a superseding decision.  If more than one event occurs at the same time, we still only need one superseding decision.  The available grounds to make that decision might have different effective dates under Reg 8 - in which case I would say make the decision on the ground that has the earliest effective date.  But the superseding decision does not only take account of the event that triggers the specific Reg 7/7A ground - you sweep up any other simultaneous events in the scope of a single decision.

In this case, the early superseding decision would rely on Reg 7(2)(i) and Reg 8(14) but coincidentally the SDP would be applied in that decision because as it happens CA is no longer payable as well.

There was a UT decision some years ago in which the Judge berated the Council for wasting his time (they were the appellant).  It was a CTB case.  The claimant was on JSA(c); he became ill and claimed ESA(c).  The Council made two superseding decisions:

- one from the mid week date on which ESA(c) started under the “relevant benefit” rule
- and then another from the following Monday to take account of the end of JSA(c) as a change of circumstance

For half the week, the claimant had his CTB based on two amounts of contribution based benefit income.  The Judge said anyone with common sense would view this as a single episode requiring only one decision, be it from the mid week date or the following Monday; in fact, he said this didn’t need a decision at all because the outcome was no different before and after.

Not exactly the same issue, but close enough I think.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 747

Joined: 27 February 2019

Interesting, thanks.