× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC and EHC Plans

Wensleyfoss
forum member

Welfare Rights Advisor, Autism Anglia

Send message

Total Posts: 61

Joined: 10 June 2015

Hi
I wonder if I could pick your brains about UC and EHC Plans?
A YP would have been able to claim the old legacy benefit IR ESA, before the introduction of UC. However, they do not seem to meet the criteria for UC as a qualifying YP. I have had one parent remove their child from college because she lost all her CTC, CB and IS and could not be without income.
The EHC Plan is a legal document and takes a YP up to 25. However, they are unable to meet their aspirations as laid out in an EHC Plan if they cannot claim UC. Sorry, if I am not making myself clear, See regs Children and Families Act and guidance from Code of Practice below

Section 19 C&FA; Part 3: LAs MUST have regard to:
1. views, wishes and feelings of CYP/Parents;
2. Importance of CYP/Parents participating as far as possible in decisions;
3. Importance of being provided with information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions;
4. The need to support the C/YP and the parents, in order to facilitate the development of the C/YP and to help them achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes.

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice (0-25)  is Statutory Guidance for LAs, CCGS, Governing bodies of schools etc.
If a case goes to Tribunal, they will expect local authorities, early education settings, schools and colleges to be able to explain any departure from the Code, where it is relevant to the case it is considering.
Intentions of reforms as reflected in CoP:
• less confrontational and more efficient;
• Early identification;
• Support routinely put in place;
• parents will know what services will be provided;
• Children and young people and their parents or carers will be fully involved in decisions about their support and what they want to achieve;
• Importantly, the aspirations for C/YP raised through an increased focus on life outcomes, including employment and greater independence.
• Those with more complex needs will have an integrated assessment and where appropriate a single Education, Health and Care plan for their support.

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Not sure I follow: what is stopping the young person from qualifying for UC?  Are you saying they won’t qualify for UC because they are in education and not entitled to PIP? Shouldn’t be a problem if they are on PIP. The chicken and egg WCA issue has workarounds that we have discussed a lot on here.

Wensleyfoss
forum member

Welfare Rights Advisor, Autism Anglia

Send message

Total Posts: 61

Joined: 10 June 2015

No not PIP.
Under the old legacy benefit of ESA, it was easy for YP to migrate over, resulting in no loss of income. With UC it is incredibly patchy depending on what JC the YP attends.
An example, YP 19 in FT ED with an EHC Plan made an application for UC. YP has SLD and a learning age of about 3 yrs. JC told the mother that the YP was not a qualifying YP for UC purposes. Mother then removed YP from special needs college in order to claim UC. However, it was incredibly complicated for the mother and when I approached the JC to request they explain and show some compassion, I was informed “it is not up to us to explain UC, the mother should know.”  However, that is a separate issue. The point is that the EHC Plan takes a YP up to 25, and that means many YP are not going to reach their aspirations as set out in a legal educational document. It seems to me there are two competing regulations.

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

I am a bit confused by your last post. A “qualifying YP” is presumably a “qualifying young person” which, in UC terms, is a person who falls within the definition of that term at reg 5.

If person is a “qualifying young person” (QYP), they are treated as receiving education (reg 12(1A) UC Regs) so do not meet the basic condition of entitlement to UC at Section 4(1)(d) of the WR Act, unless they meet any of the criteria at reg 14.

The most likely relevant exception at reg 14 is that the claimant is entitled to AA, DLA or PIP and has LCW.

A person who is not a QYP can be treated as receiving education if undertaking a course of study or training that is not compatible with any work related requirement imposed by the SofS.

A person can only be a QYP at the age of 19 if they started or were enrolled on the course before their 19th birthday, and they cannot be a QYP from 1st September after their 19th birthday (reg 5)

If, as you say, JC said the claimant was NOT a QYP, I can’t see what the problem was, unless the work coach decided the course was not compatible with a work related requirement imposed by him/her. The claimant would not be treated as receiving education otherwise.