Income Support 2 week run-on
I’m getting a little confused about an aspect of the IS 2 week run-on that came into force on 22nd July for people who claimed UC.
As far as I can see from the regs, you get the run-on payment if you were in receipt of IS at the date of your UC claim, full stop. However, I’ve seen a couple of references that imply that you only get the run-on IF you would also continue to be entitled to IS during the run-on period (for example, https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/before-you-apply/moving-to-universal-credit-from-other-benefits/ and https://www.curo-group.co.uk/news/news-stories/moving-onto-universal-credit-youll-now-get-up-to-two-weeks-run-on-payment/). CPAG makes no reference to this (p.246) when discussing the run-on.
In the case I have, the client claimed UC a couple of days before his IS was due to end following an 8-week run-on after carer’s allowance stopping (so he claimed UC on 21st September, and IS was due to end on 23rd). I can’t find any references in the regs themselves to support the assertion that in this case, this chap’s IS run-on would only continue to the 23rd, the date that his IS would have stopped anyway. Anyone any thoughts or can shed any light on this?
Alex[ Edited: 7 Oct 2020 at 03:37 pm by AlexJ ]
I think the run on does indeed depend on there being continued entitlement if not for the fact that the IS would otherwise have been terminated by the UC claim. That seems entirely logical and reasonable to me.
If I’ve understood it correctly the two week run on doesn’t create a legacy benefit entitlement where none would otherwise exist, what it does is amend the rule that says a legacy benefit is treated as ending on the day before the UC claim is made.
Tried to locate the regulation that makes this clear but got lost in the web of amendments etc. I’m sure one of our more erudite friends will be able to identify it.[ Edited: 7 Oct 2020 at 04:19 pm by Ianb ]
Thanks for the reply Ian.
From one perspective, I can see the why it would seem reasonable to only pay the run-on if a claimant would have had an existing entitlement to legacy benefits during the 2 week period, were it not for the UC claim. On the other hand, if the intention of the run-on was to help people adapt to the sudden shift from 2 weekly to monthly payments, from that perspective, whether or not the claimant would have had an entitlement to legacy benefits during the run-on period is irrelevant.
I appreciate that the example in the DWP’s guidance implies that the run-on can only be paid for a period during which the claimant would have had entitlement to legacy benefits were it not for the UC claim, but as is so often stated on these forums, guidance is guidance, not the law. Similarly to you Ian, I got rather tangled up in the regulations and amendment regulations - it’s not helped by the fact that the legislation on the gov.uk website isn’t up to date yet.
Any further comments would be much appreciated.
Not convinced they need to show an on-going entitlement to IS to receive two-week run-on.
Reg.8 of the UC(TP) Regs holds:
Termination of awards of certain existing benefits: other claimants
8.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a)a claim for universal credit (other than a claim which is treated, in accordance with regulation 9(8) of the Claims and Payments Regulations, as having been made) is made; and
(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant meets the basic conditions specified in section 4(1)(a) to (d) of the Act (other than any of those conditions which the claimant is not required to meet by virtue of regulations under section 4(2) of the Act).
(2) [F1Where] this regulation applies, all awards of.a tax credit to which the claimant (or, in the case of joint claimants, either of them) is entitled on the date on which the claim is made are to terminate, by virtue of this regulation—
(a)on the day before the first date on which the claimant is entitled to universal credit in connection with the claim; or
(b)if the claimant is not entitled to universal credit, on the day before the first date on which he or she would have been so entitled, if all of the basic and financial conditions applicable to the claimant had been met.
(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).
Isn’t reg.8(2A) saying that the award of IS terminates two weeks after the first date of entitlement to UC? Can’t see any other conditions attached.
My post here (and the thread i linked to) may be of interest.
Thanks to all for their very useful contributions.
So I think the upshot of this discussion is that ‘it may well be arguable but you’ll probably have to take it to appeal as your perspective is at odds with the DWP’s guidance’.
We’ll give it a bash and will let you know how we get on.
Incidentally, the CAB’s online info on this issue follows the DWP’s line of reasoning. If anyone reading this works for the CAB, they might want to pass a link to this thread to the powers that be, to have a look at maybe amending the online info.
Should have known that Charles would have covered this already!
I do agree that, contrary to my previous post, the regulation quoted by Paul does appear to say that the two week run on for IS depends on entitlement on the day prior to the UC claim and that if that entitlement exists that appears to be sufficient. In effect the regulation can be read as meaning the rules around administration of the IS end with the UC claim but a two week run on payment is made.
Alex, did you ever manage to resolve this for your client and did you get the two week run-on or did DWP stand by decision to end IS on the date it would otherwise have ended anyway?