Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
DWP refusal to use Reg 61(3)
If it’s irrational to take 2 months earnings into account, because of an assessment period’s date, is it not also irrational to take 2 4-weeks earnings into account because of an assessment period’s date? ,,, or 3 2-weeks’ earnings ... or 5 1-week’s earnings?
This actually gets a mention in paras 80-81 of the judgement.
Para. 80. ““There is no predictable way of identifying when a person is in receipt of monthly, weekly, biweekly or four weekly payments…”
They could look at field 42 of the RTI data. Pay frequency. This is
• W1 (Weekly)
• W2 (Fortnightly)
• W4 (4 Weekly)
• M1 (Calendar Monthly)
• M3 (Quarterly)
• M6 (Bi-annually)
• MA (Annually)
I think the feed has limited info UC end - I saw a screenshot once but I mustn’t of saved the file
If it’s irrational to take 2 months earnings into account, because of an assessment period’s date, is it not also irrational to take 2 4-weeks earnings into account because of an assessment period’s date? ,,, or 3 2-weeks’ earnings ... or 5 1-week’s earnings?
This actually gets a mention in paras 80-81 of the judgement.
There is a difference in that generally those cases will not lead to a loss of UC overall, so will only have the fluctuating income issue.By the way, does anyone know more details about the “workaround” mentioned in para 66?
are they talking about the grace period?
IIRC, Neil Couling confirmed on Twitter that this was a real workaround, not simply the grace period.
so a real work around to override the totals counted for benefit cap but they haven’t been using the actual work around for the earnings used to calculate the award ?
Yes, he confirmed that they simply treat Reg 82(1)(a) as being satisfied in these cases.
Yes, he confirmed that they simply treat Reg 82(1)(a) as being satisfied in these cases.
Prior to the 4wkly pay and benefit cap case….interesting!