Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Benefits for older people  →  Thread

Mixed age couple, award of disabiliity benefit gives LCWRA in UC?

bristol_1
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 90

Joined: 7 September 2015

Hi.
I was interested to read this in a CA article -
“If the partner over pension age is entitled to the highest rate of disability living allowance care component, the enhanced rate of PIP daily living component or attendance allowance they are automatically treated as having LCWRA. The LCWRA element should then be payable in the UC claim from the fourth UC assessment period.”

https://medium.com/adviser/mixed-age-couples-and-universal-credit-da87e4f53e83

but can’t find where in the Regs it’s from. Any ideas? It’s not in CPAG WBH that I can find either.
I have MAC just about to claim UC and their entitlement is currently looking really low (about £6!), but the older partner’s just put in for AA so this will bump them up hugely if successful. It’s worth them claiming UC as they are bedroom taxed and neither partner working although the younger one hopes to get some part time work/claim CA.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 473

Joined: 27 February 2019

See Paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the UC Regs, and p1007 of CPAG WBH.

bristol_1
forum member

WRAMAS Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 90

Joined: 7 September 2015

Ah OK! Completely missed it.

Thanks very much :-)

Emma B-G
forum member

Welfare benefits adviser - Hertfordshire County Council Money Advice Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 41

Joined: 16 June 2010

It seems inconsistent that this passporting applies to either rate of attendance allowance, but only the highest rate of DLA care!

So if I understand correctly, that means that a claimant over pension age who is getting DLA middle care only, and doesn’t have night-time needs that would enable them to move to DLA high rate care, could be better off if they switch from DLA to AA. Or you may have a situation where someone who is approaching pension age will be better off if they wait and claim AA, rather than applying for PIP before they reach pension age.

This could make better off calculations a lot more complicated if it looks like the claimant may not qualify for LCWRA by other routes.

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 205

Joined: 24 November 2017

Curious to note that although Paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 says

“Circumstances in which a claimant is to be treated as having limited capability for work and work-related activity
Disabled and over the age for state pension credit
The claimant has reached the qualifying age for state pension credit and is entitled to attendance allowance, the care component of disability living allowance at the highest rate or the daily living component of personal independence payment at the enhanced rate.”

the ADM omits reference to AA

“G3030 A claimant is treated as having LCWRA where they
1. have reached the qualifying age for SPC2 (see DMG Chapter 77) and
2. are entitled to the
2.1 highest rate care component of DLA or
2.2 enhanced rate daily living component of PIP.”

Not going to help the decision making process.

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 82

Joined: 14 September 2017

I assume if you have someone in a MAC who is over pension age but doesn’t hit the qualifying criteria for an automatic award of LCWRA (in the case I’m thinking of they only have PIP SDL) that you could still ask for a WCA to determine if they meet the LCWRA criteria?

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 205

Joined: 24 November 2017

CHAC Adviser - 04 November 2019 11:02 AM

I assume if you have someone in a MAC who is over pension age but doesn’t hit the qualifying criteria for an automatic award of LCWRA (in the case I’m thinking of they only have PIP SDL) that you could still ask for a WCA to determine if they meet the LCWRA criteria?

Yes you can.

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 82

Joined: 14 September 2017

Ianb - 04 November 2019 11:26 AM
CHAC Adviser - 04 November 2019 11:02 AM

I assume if you have someone in a MAC who is over pension age but doesn’t hit the qualifying criteria for an automatic award of LCWRA (in the case I’m thinking of they only have PIP SDL) that you could still ask for a WCA to determine if they meet the LCWRA criteria?

Yes you can.

Excellent, thank you!

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 190

Joined: 20 September 2018

So where the older member of a MAC gets AA, they will have LCWRA from the start of the UC claim and get the Work Allowance, even though they won’t get the LCWRA Element until the fourth AP?

The clients I saw today will only get UC if they have a Work Allowance.

If they earned more, and didn’t get an award without LCWRA even with a WA, what would they do? Would they have to claim now, and get turned down for excess income, and then claim again in three months (or sooner if their income decreases)? Is that what Reg 28 (3) & (4)(b) is saying?

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 214

Joined: 17 June 2010

Timothy Seaside - 22 November 2019 02:55 PM

So where the older member of a MAC gets AA, they will have LCWRA from the start of the UC claim and get the Work Allowance, even though they won’t get the LCWRA Element until the fourth AP?

The clients I saw today will only get UC if they have a Work Allowance.

If they earned more, and didn’t get an award without LCWRA even with a WA, what would they do? Would they have to claim now, and get turned down for excess income, and then claim again in three months (or sooner if their income decreases)? Is that what Reg 28 (3) & (4)(b) is saying?

I think these clients will be ok due to work allowance applying immediately as you say.

If they didn’t get award until LCWRA was included, they would get the minimum award of a penny until the fourth AP wouldn’t they? (Reg 28(7)).  No need to claim again.

I don’t think you need (3) & (4) here because the situation isn’t a previous award that has ended. It’s a penny award which can then be increased once the LCWRA is included.

For other situations (not this one), (3) & (4) only work where there has been a previous award, not where someone has never been awarded UC in the first place due to income.

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 190

Joined: 20 September 2018

Thanks Will. Yes, I think that’s right.

The client has now told me their latest pay is higher than we thought, so they will have to rely on 28(7) after all.

Looking at 28(7), it seems to me that this must require the DWP to do two calculations - one excluding the LCWRA element to work out the award, and one including it to work out whether 28(7) applies. I say this because it looks like 28(7) only applies if the reason that the award is wiped out by income is that the LCWRA element is missing. So if the income is high enough in the first AP that there would have been no award even with LCWRA, they will just have to apply again next month (or when the income drops enough) and the three month wait won’t have started.

In contrast, once they have an award their waiting period is protected from increased income whether the award would have been okay with LCWRA (28(7)), or not (28(3 & 4)). The difference being the need to reapply if relying on 28(3 & 4).

WillH
forum member

Locum adviser - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 214

Joined: 17 June 2010

Timothy Seaside - 25 November 2019 12:25 PM

Thanks Will. Yes, I think that’s right.

The client has now told me their latest pay is higher than we thought, so they will have to rely on 28(7) after all.

Looking at 28(7), it seems to me that this must require the DWP to do two calculations - one excluding the LCWRA element to work out the award, and one including it to work out whether 28(7) applies. I say this because it looks like 28(7) only applies if the reason that the award is wiped out by income is that the LCWRA element is missing. So if the income is high enough in the first AP that there would have been no award even with LCWRA, they will just have to apply again next month (or when the income drops enough) and the three month wait won’t have started.

In contrast, once they have an award their waiting period is protected from increased income whether the award would have been okay with LCWRA (28(7)), or not (28(3 & 4)). The difference being the need to reapply if relying on 28(3 & 4).

Yes I think that’s right. Once you have an award, but then lose it due to income, you can bypass the relevant period entirely or partially depending on where you were before. Leaving that aside (no previous award here) as you say 28 (7) applies where they don’t get any UC unless the LCWRA is included, so if the clients income is too high even with LCWRA, none of this helps them, they just have to apply again, and the relevant period won’t even have begun.

On another (related topic) - mixed age couple on UC with AA, relevant period applies, but you need medical evidence (not necessarily sick notes if you refer to Med Ev Regs) to start the 3 months - see reg 28(2)(b). Do we think that evidence of being on AA counts as ‘evidence of their having limited capability for work in accordance with the Medical Evidence Regulations’ - I’ve had a look at them, & I think, maybe… (reg 2(1A) Med Ev Regs). I’m assuming that this is fact sufficient; the ADM doesn’t seem to clarify.