Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

UC - does MIF apply? - re-commencing the same self-employment

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1426

Joined: 18 June 2010

Client was a self-employed tradesman for many years. Had to stop due to ill health and claimed UC 14 moths ago. Client had not previously claimed UC.

Re-started same self-employment in July and UC immediately applied the MIF. Consequence no entitlement to UC from AP in which s/e re-commenced therefore no HC paid, rent arrears etc.

UC Reg 63(2) states no ‘start up period’ can apply to the claimant when a ‘start up period’ previously applied, whether in relation to the current award or any previous award of universal credit unless (a) or (b) apply.

My interpretation (on the facts of clients case) is that a MIF should not apply because:

No start up period applied to the client in relation to either the current award or any previous award (as there never was a previous award) and the Reg. cannot be interpreted as to apply to a period before the introduction of UC (and even if it could it is more that 5 years ago that a ‘start up period’ would have been applied it the Reg could be so interpreted).

I note the DWP guidance at H4110 - 4104 particularly Note 2 at 4100. I don’t think any of the examples cover the scenario in our clients case.

The SSWP simply argues in the MRN “as you have worked in this profession for a significant number of years it is correct that the MIF should be applied to your claim”.

Opinions welcome!

[ Edited: 7 Nov 2019 at 04:38 pm by Peter Turville ]
Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 435

Joined: 27 February 2019

It sounds like they are relying on Reg 63(1)(a). I think your argument would have to be that this isn’t a continuation of his previous work, but a fresh start.

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1426

Joined: 18 June 2010

Charles - 07 November 2019 05:01 PM

It sounds like they are relying on Reg 63(1)(a). I think your argument would have to be that this isn’t a continuation of his previous work, but a fresh start.

Thanks Charles - I see your point. In other words ‘begun’ in 63(1)(a) could (should) be read as ‘started for the first time’ - noting that S&M commentary uses ‘started’ - and therefore sub (2) is irrelevant.

In this case there is no argument but that my client is gainfully employed and that it is the same trade etc. he was carrying out before claiming UC (or that once he received his 1st s/e earnings they exceeded the MIF / UC entitlement anyway).

I will see how the fresh start arguement runs with a tribunal!

[ Edited: 8 Nov 2019 at 10:31 am by Peter Turville ]