DWP plans for both managed move to UC and voluntary move to UC

Interesting. 

If you want to challenge this further then you would do this with the ICO here: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-and-eir-complaints/

If you request that the ICO expedite your complaint, and provide reasons, then they will consider whether or not that’s appropriate

Maybe ask for the date it was first carried out and the dates each time it has been reviewed during the process when new information might have come to light or when a decision was made about changes to the process. This would enable the DWP to reassure people that whilst the document itself might not be made available there is in fact a robust assessment process in place to ensure vulnerable people sharing a protected characteristic, especially in relation to disability and age, don’t suffer any disproportionate negative impact. It might be quicker to ask something like the above rather than, or as well as, responding to the most recent reply from DWP which does little to persuade me that the DWP actually has carried out any impact assessment on any aspect of the managed migration process.

keith - 01 November 2022 08:16 AM

Maybe ask for the date it was first carried out and the dates each time it has been reviewed during the process when new information might have come to light or when a decision was made about changes to the process. This would enable the DWP to reassure people that whilst the document itself might not be made available there is in fact a robust assessment process in place to ensure vulnerable people sharing a protected characteristic, especially in relation to disability and age, don’t suffer any disproportionate negative impact. It might be quicker to ask something like the above rather than, or as well as, responding to the most recent reply from DWP which does little to persuade me that the DWP actually has carried out any impact assessment on any aspect of the managed migration process.

Good idea!
I’m not sure how much farther I can go with this as I don’t directly advise or support clients and we’re not a campaigning organisation, but I do like this idea - could learn a lot about how long they had to digest its contents before going ahead

Charles - 15 August 2022 02:48 PM

I haven’t gone through the Medium article properly yet - hopefully I’ll get a chance in the next few days, but it makes a serious error regarding income for tax credit purposes.

In many (most?) cases it is more beneficial for the income details held by tax credits to be higher rather than lower on migration day.

Charles, going back to this comment (I note that the Medium article has been updated anyway as per Abi’s comment above), would you mind expanding on why?

I can think of a few reasons but am not sure that I would say it is more beneficial in most cases.

Thanks.

Not so easy to explain clearly, but I’ll try!

Starting first with someone only entitled to TC, and not to any of HB/IS/JSA/ESA:
The transitional element is calculated based on what your entitlement to UC would be if your income was at the level on which the tax credits had been calculated, and comparing that to TC entitlement.
As such, whenever the UC taper rate (55% of net income) is higher than the TC taper rate (41% of gross income), it is better to have tax credits calculated on a higher wage. Only when a claimant is earning enough to be liable to both Income Tax and NICs will the TC taper rate be higher than the UC taper rate.

Moving on to people also entitled to HB or an out of work benefit:
The HB and out of work benefit will be calculated based on ‘real’ income, not the income figure declared to TC.
As such, declaring a higher income figure to TCs means that HB (etc.) entitlement will still stay relatively higher, and therefore even where the UC taper rate is lower than the TC taper rate, it will be more than outweighed by the higher HB (etc.) entitlement.

Putting the above together, it means that the only cases where it would be more beneficial for TCs to have a lower income figure is for someone only entitled to TCs (not HB/IS/JSA/ESA), and also earning enough to pay Income Tax and NICs on those earnings.

(There is a slight wrinkle in cases where a claimant is entitled to TCs and one of IS/JSA/ESA, where it is not totally clear what income figure would be used for calculating the transitional element.)

Charles - 02 November 2022 01:14 PM

Not so easy to explain clearly, but I’ll try!

Starting first with someone only entitled to TC, and not to any of HB/IS/JSA/ESA:
The transitional element is calculated based on what your entitlement to UC would be if your income was at the level on which the tax credits had been calculated, and comparing that to TC entitlement.
As such, whenever the UC taper rate (55% of net income) is higher than the TC taper rate (41% of gross income), it is better to have tax credits calculated on a higher wage. Only when a claimant is earning enough to be liable to both Income Tax and NICs will the TC taper rate be higher than the UC taper rate.

Moving on to people also entitled to HB or an out of work benefit:
The HB and out of work benefit will be calculated based on ‘real’ income, not the income figure declared to TC.
As such, declaring a higher income figure to TCs means that HB (etc.) entitlement will still stay relatively higher, and therefore even where the UC taper rate is lower than the TC taper rate, it will be more than outweighed by the higher HB (etc.) entitlement.

Putting the above together, it means that the only cases where it would be more beneficial for TCs to have a lower income figure is for someone only entitled to TCs (not HB/IS/JSA/ESA), and also earning enough to pay Income Tax and NICs on those earnings.

(There is a slight wrinkle in cases where a claimant is entitled to TCs and one of IS/JSA/ESA, where it is not totally clear what income figure would be used for calculating the transitional element.)

Ta very much Charles. That is incredibly useful. I’d got some of that, but by no means all of it. I do have quite a lot of clients earning enough to pay tax & NI & only on tax credits in one of my roles, whereas in my other job it’s much much more variable - but anyway a useful reminder that it we need to consider each case on its own facts as ever. THANK YOU!

Did I hear right? Full rollout delayed to 2028???

Charles - 17 November 2022 12:28 PM

Did I hear right? Full rollout delayed to 2028???

Yes indeed, just going to DWP meeting to hear more

Charles - 17 November 2022 12:28 PM

Did I hear right? Full rollout delayed to 2028???

Where did you hear this, nothing on the internet yet?

The Chancellor announced it. I saw it on TV, live.

53 Employment and Support Allowance: delay managed move to Universal Credit until 2028

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/autumn-statement-2022-documents/autumn-statement-2022-html

Neil Couling says this is pure ESA claimants as well as ESA/HB claimants.

If you get ESA as well as TC’s, you’ll still be managed migrated and also IS and JSA claimants will still be moving.

Employment and Support Allowance: delay managed move - The government is pushing back the managed migration of claimants on income-related Employment and Support Allowance (with the exception of those receiving Child Tax Credit) to UC to 2028. Employment and Support Allowance claimants are still able to make a claim for UC if they believe that they will be better off, and this will not affect the managed migration of other legacy benefits onto UC.

Anyone know the reason for this?

Is it purely to save money because of average lower entitlements on ESA as compared to UC?

Just out of stakeholder meeting - Neil Couling says purely fiscal measure - nothing to do with not being ready or not knowing how to manage vulnerable claimants - apparently they will save £1bn principally due to LCWRA element being more than support group component.

Also they will be publishing results of first cohort of discovery soon - it will ‘surprise sceptics’!

Some very brief notes of meeting attached

Spot on Charles!