Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

Income Support 2 week run-on

AlexJ
forum member

Trafford Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 151

Joined: 4 July 2016

Hello everyone

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?

Cheers

Alex

[ Edited: 7 Oct 2020 at 03:37 pm by AlexJ ]
Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 884

Joined: 24 November 2017

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.

See the example in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903312/adm15-20.pdf

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 ]
AlexJ
forum member

Trafford Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 151

Joined: 4 July 2016

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.

Cheers

Alex

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2723

Joined: 7 January 2016

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.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1120

Joined: 27 February 2019

My post here (and the thread i linked to) may be of interest.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/16369

AlexJ
forum member

Trafford Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 151

Joined: 4 July 2016

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.

Thanks again

Alex

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 884

Joined: 24 November 2017

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.

Ianb
forum member

Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol

Send message

Total Posts: 884

Joined: 24 November 2017

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?

AlexJ
forum member

Trafford Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 151

Joined: 4 July 2016

A very very late update on this one.

So we eventually got the two weeks run-on for this client. A First-Tier Tribunal allowed the appeal and agreed that even though IS would have otherwise stopped during the run-on period (because the client ceased to be recognised as a carer part way through the run-on period), the client was nonetheless entitled to the full two weeks.

Sorry for the delay and thanks to all for their thoughts on this issue. I’m sure our victory won’t have changed any DWP guidance but at least it did something for my client.

Cheers

Alex

Clara
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Brighton and Hove City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 35

Joined: 21 June 2010

Hello,

I have just looked at the CPAG handbook on this and it agrees that the run on is paid ‘as long as you would otherwise have remained entitled’ p 24-25.  My mixed age couples have been receiving the full HB run on despite reaching pension age and so losing entitlement to the HB part way through the two week period.  I had assumed this was working for ESA and IS too but I have a couple now who claimed UC on 15th March and the older person reached pension age on 19th.  ESA are saying they are only entitled up to the run on up to 18th.  Do we still think this is worth appealing?  I have looked at the regs and like you in this chat can’t see why the guidance reaches this conclusion but if CPAG does too then perhaps I am wrong although encouraged by the successful appeal mentioned here.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2723

Joined: 7 January 2016

Clara - 30 March 2022 10:28 AM

Hello,

I have just looked at the CPAG handbook on this and it agrees that the run on is paid ‘as long as you would otherwise have remained entitled’ p 24-25.  My mixed age couples have been receiving the full HB run on despite reaching pension age and so losing entitlement to the HB part way through the two week period.  I had assumed this was working for ESA and IS too but I have a couple now who claimed UC on 15th March and the older person reached pension age on 19th.  ESA are saying they are only entitled up to the run on up to 18th.  Do we still think this is worth appealing?  I have looked at the regs and like you in this chat can’t see why the guidance reaches this conclusion but if CPAG does too then perhaps I am wrong although encouraged by the successful appeal mentioned here.

The legislation is so mangled on this and I don’t think the CPAG footnotes are that helpful here I must say.

I think DWP are wrong on this and you can point them to regulation 5 of the Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019:

Two week run-on of income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment and support allowance: day appointed for abolition
5.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) where, in relation to any relevant claim for universal credit, an article (“the specified article”) of any Order made under the powers in section 150(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 provides for the coming into force of the amending provisions, the provision in that article for the day appointed is to be read as though the day appointed was the last day of the period of two weeks beginning with the day [F1after the day] mentioned in that provision.

As the explanatory memorandum of these regulations explains, introduce, from July 2020 a two-week run-on of Income Support (IS), income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA(IB) and income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA(IR) for those whose awards of those benefits have terminated as a result of their claim for UC;

The important thing is that your clients made their UC claim before the older partner reached SPA - as such, their ESA award ended because they made the UC claim, therefore the two-week run-on should apply.

If your client had made the UC claim after reaching SPA which means that the ESA award would already have terminated, then they couldn’t get the two-week run-on.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1120

Joined: 27 February 2019

I think ESA is worse than IS. For ESA, the Regs simply delay the abolishment of ESA by two weeks - but all the regular ESA rules still apply. So, if the older member of the couple was the ESA claimant, I don’t see how the award can continue past them turning pension age.

IS is perhaps easier, in that it works the same way as HB and relies on Reg 8(2A) of the Transitional Provisions Regs. The argument is that that provision overrides the normal IS/HB rules and allows the award to continue for the full two weeks.

As discussed in the thread I linked to in my earlier post, DWP guidance differentiates between IS and HB, and I can’t see any reason to justify that. And it seems Alex was successful at appeal for IS.

Clara
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Brighton and Hove City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 35

Joined: 21 June 2010

Thank you both, it seems like it is worth putting in an MR and seeing what happens?

In future i need to get the mixed age couples to claim UC a fortnight before the pension date providing they are not much worse off on UC, this time it was just a few days.  It does seem very unfair when the HB run on is being paid without any issues, it is another aspect of complexity and confusion for the mixed age couples who are treated so badly by these rules.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2723

Joined: 7 January 2016

Charles - 30 March 2022 01:57 PM

I think ESA is worse than IS. For ESA, the Regs simply delay the abolishment of ESA by two weeks - but all the regular ESA rules still apply. So, if the older member of the couple was the ESA claimant, I don’t see how the award can continue past them turning pension age.

IS is perhaps easier, in that it works the same way as HB and relies on Reg 8(2A) of the Transitional Provisions Regs. The argument is that that provision overrides the normal IS/HB rules and allows the award to continue for the full two weeks.

As discussed in the thread I linked to in my earlier post, DWP guidance differentiates between IS and HB, and I can’t see any reason to justify that. And it seems Alex was successful at appeal for IS.

Which reg do you mean Charles - as far as I can see, it’s the only I highlighted immediately above that applies for ESA claims closing due to a UC claim being made.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1120

Joined: 27 February 2019

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 30 March 2022 02:14 PM

Which reg do you mean Charles - as far as I can see, it’s the only I highlighted immediately above that applies for ESA claims closing due to a UC claim being made.

Yes, I agree it’s the Reg you quoted. However, I think that simply moves the abolishment of ESA on by two weeks. It does not change the normal rules of entitlement at all. So, if under the normal rules ESA should have terminated before the end of the two weeks, it still would.
IS and HB are slightly different in that there is a specific provision there saying the award should terminate two weeks later. That could be said to override the normal rules.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2723

Joined: 7 January 2016

Charles - 30 March 2022 02:58 PM
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 30 March 2022 02:14 PM

Which reg do you mean Charles - as far as I can see, it’s the only I highlighted immediately above that applies for ESA claims closing due to a UC claim being made.

Yes, I agree it’s the Reg you quoted. However, I think that simply moves the abolishment of ESA on by two weeks. It does not change the normal rules of entitlement at all. So, if under the normal rules ESA should have terminated before the end of the two weeks, it still would.
IS and HB are slightly different in that there is a specific provision there saying the award should terminate two weeks later. That could be said to override the normal rules.

Ah I’m with you. That would be a quite absurd outcome in my opinion so will be interesting to see how Clara’s challenge gets on. Will aim to follow up with policy colleagues at DWP.