Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
UC (TP) Regs, Reg 8A(a)
I’m confused by the wording used in this reg: “even if no decision has been made…”.
What happens if a decision is eventually made that the claimant is not entitled to UC, does it mean they will still be treated as entitled to UC for the two week run-on period?
Basically, I’m wondering if a claimant about to start a new job can make a claim for UC just before starting the job (with the knowledge that that the claim will be refused due to income), and “lock in” HB entitlement for 2 weeks relying on this provision.
It would be clearer if it said “... and even if a decision has been made that he is not so entitled”. Does the absence of those words mean that there is no HB run-on in the (extremely unlikely) event that DWP makes a decision within the two weeks?
I did think perhaps these cases are unlikely to arise in practice because people won’t normally get paid nil-UC amounts of earnings within two weeks of starting work. But then I thought, if you are really looking to game the system, you would start your job as CEO of a multi-national corporation, wait three weeks and six days while receiving a conventional HB extended payment, then cynically claim UC in order to get another two weeks of HB - by that time, the earnings might have started to roll in!
Thank you Peter.
I was even thinking of a case where the decision that there is no UC entitlement was only made at the end of the first AP. I’m still not sure this Reg means HB can treat the claimant as entitled to UC.