Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

[2020] EWCA Civ 778 and people paid 4 weekly

JoW
forum member

Financial inclusion manager - Wythenshawe Community Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 322

Joined: 7 September 2012

Do people think this will help people who are paid 4 weekly?

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 253

Joined: 20 September 2018

Short answer: no.

Gareth Morgan
forum member

Managing director - Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1694

Joined: 16 June 2010

Neil Couling has been very definite in saying this doesn’t affect 4-weekly paid people.

JoW
forum member

Financial inclusion manager - Wythenshawe Community Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 322

Joined: 7 September 2012

Thanks for your responses

Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 253

Joined: 20 September 2018

Slightly longer answer: People paid four weekly never miss out on the work allowance, so they don’t actually miss out on any money, and can actually be better off if their income in their 8 week AP is high enough to wipe out any UC that month. Yes, it makes it harder to budget, but it’s not the same as the issue for Johnson cases - which was/is so bad as to be irrational.

Gareth Morgan
forum member

Managing director - Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1694

Joined: 16 June 2010

It is possible, at least mathematically, for their earnings to fall below the cap level as their earnings will always be 28 days worth, even in 31 day months, except for the one AP when they have double earnings and it’s 56 days earnings..

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 392

Joined: 24 November 2017

Gareth Morgan - 30 June 2020 01:38 PM

It is possible, at least mathematically, for their earnings to fall below the cap level as their earnings will always be 28 days worth, even in 31 day months, except for the one AP when they have double earnings and it’s 56 days earnings..

Waiting for High Court outcome of a test case brought by CPAG on that issue.

See third case down https://cpag.org.uk/test-cases/current

[ Edited: 30 Jun 2020 at 08:24 pm by Ianb ]
Timothy Seaside
forum member

Housing services - Arun District Council

Send message

Total Posts: 253

Joined: 20 September 2018

Gareth Morgan - 30 June 2020 01:38 PM

It is possible, at least mathematically, for their earnings to fall below the cap level as their earnings will always be 28 days worth, even in 31 day months, except for the one AP when they have double earnings and it’s 56 days earnings..

Equally it’s possible for somebody whose average earnings fall below the cap level to avoid the cap sometimes because of this.

I suppose I see this as a cap issue rather than an earnings issue. It seems to me that it’s not blatantly unfair to count four or five weeks earnings in an AP. But it is blatantly unfair to apply the cap at a rate which is based on average earnings over the month when they don’t count the earnings as an average over the month. It could be put right by changing how the cap is applied.

I think the underlying problems are that the system is poorly designed, and the people in charge of the system do not care about (or do not understand) the problems faced by people who have to deal with it.