Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
SDP compensation through UC
Only after the conversion day as I read it. Basically, people on SDP compo will at some stage undergo managed migration and at that stage the compo is integrated into max UC
Ah OK - so does that mean that until conversion day it’s non-means-tested and can’t be lost (other than forming or stopping being a couple)
˄˄˄Don’t know!
....And perhaps you can only have an additional amount of UC if you have an amount of UC in the first place.
On the other hand I can’t fault your logic in this sentence.
....And perhaps you can only have an additional amount of UC if you have an amount of UC in the first place.
On the other hand I can’t fault your logic in this sentence.
Additional is ambiguous here, perhaps, but I read it as additional to the amount of universal credit which must necessarily be awarded in the AP in which the transitional amount is initiated.
On the other hand, I don’t see why the basic conditions (and the capital limit) don’t apply to the transitional amount as it is an amount of UC.
The income means-test doesn’t apply, because unlike the transitional element, the transitional amount is not an amount to be included in the calculation of an award, - nothing that treats it “as if it were an additional amount to be included in the maximum amount under section 8(2) before the deduction of income under section 8(3).” (new 52.(1))
Only after the conversion day as I read it. Basically, people on SDP compo will at some stage undergo managed migration and at that stage the compo is integrated into max UC
Ah OK - so does that mean that until conversion day it’s non-means-tested and can’t be lost (other than forming or stopping being a couple)
˄˄˄Don’t know!
The explanatory notes to SI 2019 1152 state ‘The flat rate is converted into a transitional element after a date determined by the Secretary of State’.
So it looks like it is on their ‘to do list’ to stop the SDP transitional payments eventually.
Thank you everyone for these analyses….. which have left my head spinning!
As an aside .... this just shows what a mess this is, a mess that could have been avoided by the DWP not discriminating in the first place!
I am so fuming about this case. The same one person has been affected by a) second LCW decision/appeal b) earnings issue becuase date of monthly pay varies - ie Johnson-lookalike c) would have been on WTC as a disabled worker without needing to be LCW as she has PIP
And now she has lost her compo.