Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Disregarded capital for UC- Definition of ‘Lone Parent’
A colleague asked me this, I’m sure its come up before but I couldn’t remember the answer!
Cl is moving out of the marital home and the care of the two children is to be split 50/50 between cl and ex.
Ex is going to remain in the home and under Sch. 10 UC Regs. the cl’s share of the value of that home can be ignored indefinitely if the ex is a lone parent.
If the cl has the Child Benefit and the UC child element (and is thereby the majority Carer ) for both children is the ex in fact a lone parent at all or would they have to claim for one child each, which might have all sorts of knock on effects for the Housing Element et al.
Generally, in cases where custody is split 50/50, the old legacy benefits ( HB, IS, JSA etc) would use the child benefit as the deciding factor - so the person who got cben was classed as the person responsible for the child(ren)
I thought that UC followed the same principles, although I have seen cases where the same kids are included at mum and dads claim at separate addresses - although this has been amended once we’ve queried it with vulnerable hub, so i assume including the kids on both claims was an error
So, if the person living in the marital home isnt getting cben for the kids, that person isnt a lone parent and therefore the capital of value of the property wouldnt be ignored indefinitely for the partner that left.
For UC receipt of CB is not supposed to be used as the deciding factor.
See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/890310/admf1.pdf
Paragraphs 1056 and 1060.
Nonetheless only one parent can be the responsible carer so if client is getting the child element in UC then ex will not be treated as a single parent.
Thanks for the replies, we are (cautiously) taking the view that the ex partner should get Child Benefit for one child and the cl should get child benefit for the other child plus the child element of UC for both children. I don’t know if anyone has dealt with a case with these circumstances, if they have I would be grateful for any experiences/tactics.
Thanks for the replies, we are (cautiously) taking the view that the ex partner should get Child Benefit for one child and the cl should get child benefit for the other child plus the child element of UC for both children. I don’t know if anyone has dealt with a case with these circumstances, if they have I would be grateful for any experiences/tactics.
I can’t see that working. If client gets carer element for both children in UC then, for UC, she is being treated as the responsible parent. Logically therefore the ex is not, for UC purposes, a single parent and therefore the disregard doesn’t apply. I don’t think the ex getting CB for one child will change that.
No doubt there are good reasons or history for the proposed arrangement but, if they are not willing to sell the home, it makes more sense for client and the children to remain in it and for the ex to move out.
Thanks for the replies, we are (cautiously) taking the view that the ex partner should get Child Benefit for one child and the cl should get child benefit for the other child plus the child element of UC for both children. I don’t know if anyone has dealt with a case with these circumstances, if they have I would be grateful for any experiences/tactics.
I can’t see that working. If client gets carer element for both children in UC then, for UC, she is being treated as the responsible parent. Logically therefore the ex is not, for UC purposes, a single parent and therefore the disregard doesn’t apply. I don’t think the ex getting CB for one child will change that.
No doubt there are good reasons or history for the proposed arrangement but, if they are not willing to sell the home, it makes more sense for client and the children to remain in it and for the ex to move out.
It is entirely possible for one claimant to received CHB for one or both children and another claimant to receive one/both child elements in UC (or legacy benefits inc. CTC). This is because the DM for each benefit must make the decision about which person has main responsibility/with whom the child normally lives / or contributes to the cost of the child (for CHB) based on the facts available to them. Entitlement to CHB is not the statutory determining factor for the purposes of other benefits or vice versa. See the relevant chapters in the CPAG Handbook.
For example, if there are two children involved the claimants could agree to be ‘responsible’ for once child each and claim CHB and UC child element for one child each. It would be possible for the claimants to claim CHB for 1 child each but for one them to be awarded UC child elements for both children. But I would expect (from experience) one of both claimants to have to challenge any decision by UC (or any other benefit) to refuse to accept they are ‘responsible’ for both children when another claimant is awarded the CHB for the same child.
It is not unusual for ‘competing claimants to dispute who has ‘responsibility’ for a child/children in ‘shared care’ situations (unlike the family courts the benefit system does not recognise the concept of ‘shared care’). I have had tribunals very strongly advise ‘competing claimants’ to decide who should take responsibility for a child/children rather than have to argue out the facts of the situation in ‘shared care’ cases before the tribunal!
I’m not sure what relevance a carers element has as there is no reference to disability/caring in the original post and ‘responsibility’ would not be directly relevant (for example, a claimant can get a carers element in respect of a child/adult who does not normally live with them / for whom they are not ‘responsible’).
To be practical it might save a lot of ‘grief’ and the need to MR/appeal (possibly multiple) benefits decisions on the issue of ‘responsibility’ if claimants can agree who should received the CHB and appropriate elements of other benefits for each child. I know from experience that cannot be achieved in every case and can lead to endless disputes / appeals between ‘competing’ claimants.
It may be helpful to consider the definitions of ‘responsibility’ for each relevant benefit when advising claimants and for them to consider the implications (long drawn out / repeated challenge process etc) if they cannot agree. There is extensive case law on applying the relevant definitions for many of the relevant benefits.
[ Edited: 13 May 2021 at 12:27 pm by Peter Turville ]Thanks for the replies, we are (cautiously) taking the view that the ex partner should get Child Benefit for one child and the cl should get child benefit for the other child plus the child element of UC for both children. I don’t know if anyone has dealt with a case with these circumstances, if they have I would be grateful for any experiences/tactics.
I can’t see that working. If client gets carer element for both children in UC then, for UC, she is being treated as the responsible parent. Logically therefore the ex is not, for UC purposes, a single parent and therefore the disregard doesn’t apply. I don’t think the ex getting CB for one child will change that.
No doubt there are good reasons or history for the proposed arrangement but, if they are not willing to sell the home, it makes more sense for client and the children to remain in it and for the ex to move out.
It is entirely possible for one claimant to received CHB for one or both children and another claimant to receive one/both child elements in UC (or legacy benefits inc. CTC). This is because the DM for each benefit must make the decision about which person has main responsibility/with whom the child normally lives / or contributes to the cost of the child (for CHB) based on the facts available to them. Entitlement to CHB is not the statutory determining factor for the purposes of other benefits or vice versa. See the relevant chapters in the CPAG Handbook.
For example, if there are two children involved the claimants could agree to be ‘responsible’ for once child each and claim CHB and UC child element for one child each. It would be possible for the claimants to claim CHB for 1 child each but for one them to be awarded UC child elements for both children. But I would expect (from experience) one of both claimants to have to challenge any decision by UC (or any other benefit) to refuse to accept they are ‘responsible’ for both children when another claimant is awarded the CHB for the same child.
It is not unusual for ‘competing claimants to dispute who has ‘responsibility’ for a child/children in ‘shared care’ situations (unlike the family courts the benefit system does not recognise the concept of ‘shared care’). I have had tribunals very strongly advise ‘competing claimants’ to decide who should take responsibility for a child/children rather than have to argue out the facts of the situation in ‘shared care’ cases before the tribunal!
I’m not sure what relevance a carers element has as there is no reference to disability/caring in the original post and ‘responsibility’ would not be directly relevant (for example, a claimant can get a carers element in respect of a child/adult who does not normally live with them / for whom they are not ‘responsible’).
To be practical it might save a lot of ‘grief’ and the need to MR/appeal (possibly multiple) benefits decisions on the issue of ‘responsibility’ if claimants can agree who should received the CHB and appropriate elements of other benefits for each child. I know from experience that cannot be achieved in every case and can lead to endless disputes / appeals between ‘competing’ claimants.
It may be helpful to consider the definitions of ‘responsibility’ for each relevant benefit when advising claimants and for them to consider the implications (long drawn out / repeated challenge process etc) if they cannot agree. There is extensive case law on applying the relevant definitions for many of the relevant benefits.
Thanks for the replies, I will see how the cl’s feel about reaching an agreement
I’m not sure what relevance a carers element has as there is no reference to disability/caring in the original post and ‘responsibility’ would not be directly relevant (for example, a claimant can get a carers element in respect of a child/adult who does not normally live with them / for whom they are not ‘responsible’).
Sorry that was simply typo on my part - I meant the child element!
It did rather confuse my argument though.
I fully understand that responsibility can be treated differently for different benefits and made that very point earlier in the thread.
The point I was trying to make was that if the UC claimant is receiving child element for all the children I can’t see UC also treating the ex as a single parent even if they are getting CB.