Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
ESA OR UC?
Hi I am hoping anyone can help.
My colleague has a client who is profoundly deaf, she is in receipt to DLA Middle rate care and Low rate mobility. She was on her partners Income Related – ESA claim in which they were paid two severe disability premiums as both are on a qualifying benefit.
They are no longer a couple and the ESA has ended on 29/8/19. They own their own home and have no other benefits which include a SDP. She lives alone currently and no one claims carers allowance for her.
Is she entitled to claim Income related ESA as a single claimant or would it have to Universal credit.
My colleague was informed by DWP on the ESA new claims line that she is not entitled to make a claim for ESA as it was her partners claim with the SDP’s. Is this the case?
DWP are wrong
4A. No claim may be made for universal credit on or after 16th January 2019 by a single claimant who, or joint claimants either of whom—
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/10/regulation/2/made
DWP are wrong
4A. No claim may be made for universal credit on or after 16th January 2019 by a single claimant who, or joint claimants either of whom—
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/10/regulation/2/made
Does that apply. This claimant is not a single claimant previously in receipt of a benefit with SDP (because they were not the claimant), nor are they part of a joint claim for UC. Rather they are a claimant who was previously joined to a claim by another person which included an SDP on their account - I’m not clear that that is covered by the wording.
DWP are correct; it’s UC unfortunately.
Reg 4A doesn’t bite because the client (who would be claiming as a single person following the relationship breakdown) isn’t and hasn’t been entitled to a legacy benefit, let alone a legacy benefit including the SDP, in the past month. She was only the partner on the ESA claim.
The same situation comes about if you have a double SDP couple where the claimant dies which obviously then creates a massive income shock.
Was there HB in payment as well? worth checking if that was in your claimant’s name as that would allow the new claim for ESA. Just because the ESA is in the ex partners name doesn’t mean the HB is
Otherwise it’s UC.
ed. sorry just noticed they are a home owner so there wont be any HB.
DWP are correct; it’s UC unfortunately.
Reg 4A doesn’t bite because the client (who would be claiming as a single person following the relationship breakdown) isn’t and hasn’t been entitled to a legacy benefit, let alone a legacy benefit including the SDP, in the past month. She was only the partner on the ESA claim.
The same situation comes about if you have a double SDP couple where the claimant dies which obviously then creates a massive income shock.
What’s the point of “or jointly claims” then? That can’t be restricted to JSA; that’d throw up all kinds of art 14 problems.
Joint claimants refers to a couple claiming UC. The SDP gateway applies if either one of them personally has/had an SDP
Joint claimants refers to a couple claiming UC. The SDP gateway applies if either one of them personally has/had an SDP
Although if only one of the new couple gets a qualifying benefit although that person previously got the SDP they would no longer continue to satisfy the conditions for eligibility for an SDP asa result of now being in a couple. They are not, by my reading, therefore excluded from UC in their new situation.
Joint claimants refers to a couple claiming UC. The SDP gateway applies if either one of them personally has/had an SDP
Although if only one of the new couple gets a qualifying benefit although that person previously got the SDP they would no longer continue to satisfy the conditions for eligibility for an SDP asa result of now being in a couple. They are not, by my reading, therefore excluded from UC in their new situation.
Agreed, yes, they must still as a couple have the characteristics that would qualify for an SDP
Joint claimants refers to a couple claiming UC. The SDP gateway applies if either one of them personally has/had an SDP
Although if only one of the new couple gets a qualifying benefit although that person previously got the SDP they would no longer continue to satisfy the conditions for eligibility for an SDP asa result of now being in a couple. They are not, by my reading, therefore excluded from UC in their new situation.
You are of course correct, but generally (unless one was claiming HB and the other IS/ESA/JSA), in every couple receiving SDP, only one would have been entitled to a benefit “that includes a severe disability premium”.
Joint claimants refers to a couple claiming UC. The SDP gateway applies if either one of them personally has/had an SDP
Although if only one of the new couple gets a qualifying benefit although that person previously got the SDP they would no longer continue to satisfy the conditions for eligibility for an SDP asa result of now being in a couple. They are not, by my reading, therefore excluded from UC in their new situation.
You are of course correct, but generally (unless one was claiming HB and the other IS/ESA/JSA), in every couple receiving SDP, only one would have been entitled to a benefit “that includes a severe disability premium”.
Understood - I was thinking of the situation where UC is being claimed because of the formation of a new couple. I forgot that a ‘legacy’ couple would only have one claimant which is what this provision is aimed at. Thanks, as always.
so, If this is the case, as advisors should we be telling clients to ensure that the other member of a couple should ensure the HB claimant is in their name?
so, If this is the case, as advisors should we be telling clients to ensure that the other member of a couple should ensure the HB claimant is in their name?
Seems reasonable. That fact just saved one of my clients from UC, and now claims ESA with SDP instead.
so, If this is the case, as advisors should we be telling clients to ensure that the other member of a couple should ensure the HB claimant is in their name?
Seems reasonable. That fact just saved one of my clients from UC, and now claims ESA with SDP instead.
Problem is the cannot get into that situation without making a claim, and they cannot make a claim unless they already have an SDP…
so, If this is the case, as advisors should we be telling clients to ensure that the other member of a couple should ensure the HB claimant is in their name?
Seems reasonable. That fact just saved one of my clients from UC, and now claims ESA with SDP instead.
Problem is the cannot get into that situation without making a claim, and they cannot make a claim unless they already have an SDP…
Ah, yes slipped past me that…
Is there no way to change the “lead” claimant in HB without submitting a new claim?
And out of curiosity, what happens if the non-claimant in a couple (not separated) with 2xSDP tries to claim UC?
[ Edited: 24 Sep 2019 at 04:52 pm by Va1der ]Ah, yes slipped past me that…
Is there no way to change the “lead” claimant in HB without submitting a new claim?
Not legally, but I can well imagine some LAs will wrongly allow it.
And out of curiosity, what happens if the non-claimant in a couple (not separated) with 2xSDP tries to claim UC?
They are not able to claim UC. If either one of a couple have an SDP then both cannot claim UC.