× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC and Carer Elelement - underlying entitlement

Greeny
forum member

Salford Welfare Rights (Health)

Send message

Total Posts: 33

Joined: 3 April 2017

Hello. I helped a couple (mixed age) with their claim to UC to include a LCWRA for cl of working age and a CE for his wife and a pensioner. She actually claimed Carer’s Allowance and got the letter informing her of the overlapping benefit rules and advising she has underlying entitlement to the premium. 12 months + on,  UC have started to deduct the carer allowance as income (incorrectly - it is not paid) and have put it to her to prove so.

My question is - Would it just be easier for her to end the underlying entitlement or to have not claimed it formally in the first place as all evidence suggests that if you show you meet the requirements it can be paid anyway?

has anyone any experience of this?

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3211

Joined: 7 January 2016

That’s just stupid administration. They can’t take Carer’s Allowance into account if she doesn’t actually receive it (I’m assuming her State Pension exceeds £67.25 a week). As for making her “prove” that she doesn’t get it, I’d suggest you tell them to check their own effing records because they have access to that evidence.

Further, as you note, for the carer’s element, it doesn’t matter whether or not she receives the CA, you simply need to satisfy the rules. It’s worthwhile keeping the underlying entitlement for when her partner reaches SPA as they do need it for carer’s premium with PC and HB.

You might want to highlight reg.66 of the UC Regs 2013 which couldn’t really be more clear:

What is included in unearned income?
66.—(1) A person’s unearned income is any of their income, including income the person is treated as having by virtue of regulation 74 (notional unearned income), falling within the following descriptions—

(a)retirement pension income (see regulation 67);
(b)any of the following benefits to which the person is entitled, subject to any adjustment to the amount payable in accordance with regulations under section 73 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992(1) (overlapping benefits)
(i)jobseeker’s allowance,
(ii)employment and support allowance,
(iii)carer’s allowance,

If they don’t amend accordingly, I’d either complain in the strongest terms or maybe even suggest MP or threaten JR because this is just stupid and unnecessary,