Legacy Benefits Run-on

There was a discussion last year (see this thread) whether the HB run-on would continue if there was another reason for the HB to end. Two cases in the guidance were found which suggested the run-on would continue: (1) Moving to another LA, and (2) Becoming a mixed-age couple. In both those cases the guidance is clear that the run-on would still continue.

The run-on for IS is legislated for in precisely the same way as the HB run-on. However, the new ADM Memo is clear that where IS ends for some other reason, the run-on will not continue.

How you reconcile the above, I have no clue. There is certainly room to argue that the IS run-on should also continue for the full 2 weeks.

I haven’t seen the new provisions for IS run on in the regs, but I think the best explanation is probably that the rules don’t actually say what the DWP think they say.

The memo says the IS runs on “in the same way as for the transitional payment of HB”, but then the example that follows is of somebody who claims UC four days before their child turns 5. The HB runs on two weeks, the CTC stops straight away, and the IS stops on the child’s 5th birthday - cutting short the two week run on by ten days.

I think the HB runs on in Reg 8 by setting a specific termination date two weeks later - it doesn’t just say that you can pretend there’s no UC and so continue with HB.  And Reg 8A says that they’ll carry on getting HB at the same rate as they were - so the ongoing award is not subject to any change in rent, etc.

So I can see that if there’s no equivalent of Reg 8A for IS you might argue that the new termination date could still be dependent on an ongoing entitlement. I understand the way the JSA and ESA run-ons work is to pretend that UC hasn’t started (by treating the abolition date as being two weeks later). So arguably this interpretation would make the IS run on more like the JSA and ESA one. The problem with this reasoning is that JSA and ESA don’t tend to stop abruptly (and often predictably) like IS does.

Maybe I’ll have a look at the amended regs now. Maybe I should have looked before typing this.

So I think the new Reg 8 (2A) reads:
(2A) Subject to paragraph (3), where this regulation applies, an award of income support or housing benefit to which the claimant is entitled on the day mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (b) terminates on the last day of the period of two weeks beginning with the day after that day (whether or not the person is also entitled to an award of a tax credit).

And the new Reg 8B doesn’t introduce any sort of safeguard to the level of IS like 8A does for the level of HB. But I’ve just noticed that the safeguard in 8A only appears to apply to somebody served with a migration notice - so it’s not really relevant.

That means it probably comes down to an argument about whether 2A sets a definite termination date which is not subject to any other entitlement conditions.

Does the fact that the JSA and ESA run-ons are explicitly subject to continuing entitlement strengthen or weaken the argument that the IS run-on shouldn’t be subject to normal entitlement rules? I would hope that the fact that IS has been tied in to HB would mean that it should work exactly the same. But this means that either they were wrong then, or they are wrong now - which I think is where Charles started. It’s not really possible to reconcile.