Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
SDP, mixed-age couples and possible age discrimination?
An adviser has got in touch with us about the SDP gateway to query what would happen to a mixed-age couple claiming PC at date of change, i.e. 15 May, but who subsequently lose entitlement under the savings provisions.
Say the couple in question have the severe disability addition included in their PC claim. Under the SDP gateway regulations, you’re prevented from claiming UC if you’ve been entitled to the SDP at any time over the past one month with ESA, JSA, IS or HB only.
In our mixed-age couple scenario, they only need to lose entitlement to PC for a single day and they lose their PC and are forced to claim UC instead and obviously they’re not covered by SDP gateway regulations.
Surely this could be construed as age discrimination if/when this happens? Any thoughts?
Actually, there’s also another scenario which troubles me even more.
Our mixed-age couple claiming PC are also claiming HB and they get an SDP included in their HB.
They have a break iin claim to both due to a temporay absence of 29 days.
When they reclaim, under the SDP Gateway Regs, they can’t claim UC because their HB claim included the SDP and was paid within the last month (and even if it’s pension-age HB, that is still caught by the defintition of HB in the interpretation reg.2 of the UC Transitional Regs - “housing benefit” means housing benefit under section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which to me seems to cover both the working age and pension age HB schemes).
Yet they can’t claim PC or HB because of the mixed-age couple CO and the loss of savings provisions.
Am I right to be worried?
Am I right to be worried?
I’m sure these concerns have been aired already.
yes you are.
Actually, there’s also another scenario which troubles me even more.
Our mixed-age couple claiming PC are also claiming HB and they get an SDP included in their HB.
They have a break iin claim to both due to a temporay absence of 29 days.
When they reclaim, under the SDP Gateway Regs, they can’t claim UC because their HB claim included the SDP and was paid within the last month (and even if it’s pension-age HB, that is still caught by the defintition of HB in the interpretation reg.2 of the UC Transitional Regs - “housing benefit” means housing benefit under section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which to me seems to cover both the working age and pension age HB schemes).
Yet they can’t claim PC or HB because of the mixed-age couple CO and the loss of savings provisions.
Am I right to be worried?
I think they can claim HB. They can also claim one of IS/ESA/JSA.
I think they can claim HB. They can also claim one of IS/ESA/JSA.
Care to explain how Charles? This is starting to make my head spin and it’s not even started yet.
Care to explain how Charles? This is starting to make my head spin and it’s not even started yet.
HB can be claimed in the same way as a working-age couple who are caught by the SDP gateway can claim it. Art 6 will not terminate the claim, as none of the cases in Art 6(2) apply here.
IS/ESA/JSA can be claimed by the younger member of the couple, again like they could be claimed by a working-age couple caught by the SDP gateway.
Care to explain how Charles? This is starting to make my head spin and it’s not even started yet.
HB can be claimed in the same way as a working-age couple who are caught by the SDP gateway can claim it. Art 6 will not terminate the claim, as none of the cases in Art 6(2) apply here.
IS/ESA/JSA can be claimed by the younger member of the couple, again like they could be claimed by a working-age couple caught by the SDP gateway.
But what about Article 5 of CO31 that prevents new HB claims from MAC’s? Or does it?
But what about Article 5 of CO31 that prevents new HB claims from MAC’s? Or does it?
That just removes the previous exception which enabled ALL mixed-age couples to claim HB. There is separate provision (made by Reg 3 of the SDP Gateway Regs) allowing HB (and IS/JSA/ESA/TC) claims by those caught by the SDP gateway.
So Article 6(11) of CO21 as amended enables the HB claim to be made because it disapplies Article 6(1) (which prevents new HB claims except in prescribed circumstances) (and this is also what enables an IS claim?) and Article 5A(1) as amended of CO9 is what enables a JSA or ESA claim to be made?
I’m going to tell all mixed-age couples claiming PC and HB not to go on holiday…..
So Article 6(11) of CO21 as amended enables the HB claim to be made because it disapplies Article 6(1) (which prevents new HB claims except in prescribed circumstances) (and this is also what enables an IS claim?) and Article 5A(1) as amended of CO9 is what enables a JSA or ESA claim to be made?
Yes, that’s right.
I’m going to tell all mixed-age couples claiming PC and HB not to go on holiday…..
I know. This is why I hate these sort of savings. It would have been better to make the saving simply depend on having reached pension-age before 15th May.
Article 6(1) doesn’t prevent anyone from claiming, it terminates existing awards. Article 5 amends Article 7 of the No 23 Order by making limited provision for new claims and doesn’t cover your scenario ... but the SDP rules which are in a different paragraph of Article 7 apply additionally and separately. That would allow the posited couple to claim HB, and a corresponding provision of the No 9 Order would allow the younger partner to claim ESA with pensioner premiums.
Most of this I learned from Charles!
Edit, sorry you were talking about a different Article 6, ignore me. Yes you were right
[ Edited: 2 May 2019 at 01:03 pm by HB Anorak ]Thanks both, if Peter’s getting confused about some of this, that makes me feel slighrly less daft on this.
So back to the opening post, possible age discrimination?
i’m going to stop reading threads on here on mixed age couples with you two posting on it.
this isnt good for my levels anxiety the thought of dealing with these queries.