reversion to UC and HB

my client is a mixed age couple male age 72 female age 63, he tells me he was getting PC but his local council told him to claim UC, he is not eligible to UC and his HB has stopped of course, I thought i had seen something which suggested some mixed age couple can sat on PC , is it all too late no that my client has claimed PC and been refused ???

If he is still entitled to PC, the HB can be salvaged.

Regulation 8 of the UC (Transitional Provisions) Regs says that HB terminates if the claimant claims UC, even if they are not entitled to UC due to pension income.  But this Regulation says nothing about Pension Credit.

Regulation 5 says you cannot be entitled to PC if you are entitled to UC.  But he never was entitled to UC, so Reg 5 is not triggered.  That means that PC should have continued.  Assuming that the PC award predates May 2019 and they have been a mixed age couple since that time, he can rely on the continuing PC award to make a transitionally protected HB claim and have it backdated to when the previous award terminated (assuming it’s within the last three months).

The HB section might subscribe to the view that once someone has been whacked with the UC stick the mark never rubs off and it is impossible to reclaim HB, but that’s not the case if the PC award has remained in place.  Tell them I said so, and remind them I have an excellent training course on the subject!

If PC has ended it’s more complicated.  it might be possible to get the decision revised as there is no obvious reason why it should have ended; otherwise they could be looking at a complaint and compensation for faulty advice from the Council.

For completeness, some MACs are better off on UC - not many but it can work out that way if they have working non-dependants and high rent, or if they are working and paying child care fees.  I am assuming this is not one of those rare cases because they didn’t qualify for UC!

This sounds from OP like they may have problem as I read it that both PC and HB stopped. If so, the savings provisions stop applying under the terms of Article 4(2) of CO31.

As Peter says, the obvious route to try and rectify this is to find out why the PC award stopped and when - if that can be put back into payment from that date, then the resulting continuous PC award does mean a new HB claim is also possible.

It’s so frustrating to keep hearing these cases coming up - people stand to potentially lose thousands of pounds in entitlements because local authorities haven’t got a clue about mixed-age couples.

my client had his PC ended in July 2021 due to an increase in his income, can he reclaim now ??the problem I see is that his HB was paid after PC ended but when he claim UC HB ended and I can’t see how I can get PC started again if his HB ended

Ah, that is unfortunate.  The UC claim killed the HB, and with no PC in place at that time all transitional protection links with pre-May 2019 have been broken.

So a complaint is the solution

thanks HB, as I suspected, its the end of the line for PC and HB on this one, does the UT decision UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: CTC/1276/2018.refer to this kind of case ???...

Not in any way that helps, they have met all the basic conditions for UC and simply are not entitled because their income is too high.  It has gone way past the stage where any kind of reverse ferret would get them out of it.

Diogenes - 06 June 2022 01:40 PM

thanks HB, as I suspected, its the end of the line for PC and HB on this one, does the UT decision UPPER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: CTC/1276/2018.refer to this kind of case ???...

Given the different circumstances between that case and this one, it might be arguable.

The basic conditions referred to in reg.8 include:

4 Basic conditions
(1) For the purposes of section 3, a person meets the basic conditions
who—

(b) has not reached the qualifying age for state pension credit,

Your client had reached the qualifying age for state pension credit and therefore the basic conditions required to be satisfied under reg.8(1)(b) were clearly not satisfied when the UC claim was made (unlike in the tax credits case in the judgment you refer to where they were).

Although the problem may be that reg.8 aloo states:

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).

And sec 4(2) states:

(2)Regulations may provide for exceptions to the requirement to meet any of the basic conditions (and, for joint claimants, may provide for an exception for one or both).

and in turn reg.3 of the UC Regs 2013 provides that:

Couples
3.—(1) This regulation makes provision in relation to couples, including cases where both members of a couple may be entitled to universal credit jointly without each of them meeting all the basic conditions referred to in section 4 of the Act (see paragraph (2)) and cases where a person whose partner does not meet all the basic conditions [F1or is otherwise excluded from entitlement to universal credit] may make a claim as a single person (see paragraph (3)).

(a)one member does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(b) (under the qualifying age for state pension credit) if the other member does meet that condition

Yes, that’s the problem - a mixed age couple are caught by Reg 8 because the age condition doesn’t prevent them from claiming UC

thanks Paul and HB, it looks conclusive, my clients have made a complaint against the Council and lets hope they get some satisfaction

I have a similar case to this one:

mixed age couple, he is on PC as over state p age but she isn’t on the claim as under state p, she is now needing to apply for PIP and asked if she should claim UC, obviously I’m aware of the 2019 rule on MAC , he was on PC before this date.

Would they be better off

1. leaving the PC and not getting any IR benefit for her and she just gets PIP? 

2. would they be better off putting her on the PC under a transitional rule: how would they achieve it? 

3. Would they be better off her claiming UC and forcing him to end his PC claim and become a joint couple on UC?

I think I know the answer but just wanted to check what everyone else thinks.

calman367 - 05 October 2022 11:22 AM

I have a similar case to this one:

mixed age couple, he is on PC as over state p age but she isn’t on the claim as under state p, she is now needing to apply for PIP and asked if she should claim UC, obviously I’m aware of the 2019 rule on MAC , he was on PC before this date.

Would they be better off

1. leaving the PC and not getting any IR benefit for her and she just gets PIP? 

2. would they be better off putting her on the PC under a transitional rule: how would they achieve it? 

3. Would they be better off her claiming UC and forcing him to end his PC claim and become a joint couple on UC?

I think I know the answer but just wanted to check what everyone else thinks.

Your clients are living together as a couple but the older partner is claiming as a single person? If so, they need to disclose the fact of the younger partner in the household and this will end the PC award.

As on a similar thread, the only possible savings would be if the older partner had a pension-age HB award on the basis of them being a couple that has been in continuous payment since 14.05.19.

Why isnt they ounger partner on the PC claim? Are they on a visa or similar with no recourse to public funds?
That is pretty much the only reason a couple living together wouldnt be paid as a couple.
If older person was on PC as a single person, and then partner moved in, thats a change in circs whiuch needs reporting and, these days, is likely to end the PC claim and push down the UC route.