Trying to keep on IS as a carer as child turns 5 yrs old
Hail all – could you help me to think clearly?
IS/CTC claimant, claiming as lone parent, youngest child is 5 very soon. SDP in payment as parent is on PIP.
Two children, both on high-rate care DLA but the mum gets no CA or CP – been told her PIP will stop if she claims CA. This is piffle, but it has stopped her doing anything so far.
It looks as if the family will be £60 a week worse off on UC even with the SDP TE. there is also the complete swizz that claimant will have to go through WCA and if successful will lose SDP TE.
Can I keep them on IS? If the claimant is ALSO a carer, can she claim CA and so the Carer Premium, and remain on IS on that basis?
OR without CA, if better off that way,,on the basis of continued claim being under Sch 1B(4)(a) IS (General) Regs?
Yes, there is nothing to stop you hopping between heads of entitlement to IS. She should be asking for the carers premium in any event.
It would just be a case of timing everything and ensuring that there is no gap during which the DWP could issue a decision ending the award.
Thank you Eliot. We have about 20 days to resolve this!
So long as she gets her CA claim in before child is 5 I think it should be fine on the basis of this - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/dwp-issues-guidance-on-revision-of-decisions-to-terminate-an-award-because-a-qualifying-benefit-has-ceased-where-that-benefit-is-subsequently-reinstated
I know this is award of a qualifying benefit rather than cessation that has been reinstated but I would say the same argument applies - she is entitled to CA on day child turns 5 even if decided after that date
Thank Daphne, she is claiming CA online today.
Worryingly, IS told her that if she didn’t claim CA, she’d have to claim UC. Not correct, but as it turns out, she’s better off claiming CA anyway. Plus it will shut them up.
Yet another case where the claimant would have lost out badly if moved to UC, and DWP let her believe this is what had to happen.
These complications are of DWP’s making, but they have nothing in place to help people.
Remember that she can be entitled to IS as a carer without having an award of CA (something that DWP often appear to forget)
Remember that she can be entitled to IS as a carer without having an award of CA (something that DWP often appear to forget)[/quote
Yep. They did. And they are still insisting they are right. I’ve written to them to make sure things are resoundingly clear.
Ha, I’ve been there. Even printing out the pages from the DMG didn’t make much difference!
I had the same problem
They then took notional CA as income
That case went to Tribunal, (won )
Still have the submission somewhere
does the same apply for Universal Credit? And do you still have that submission? We have a similar issue but it is UC - claimant is carer and would like to give up work - better off but that changes if CA is unclaimed notional income.
The notional income regulation in UC expressly excludes other state benefits that would count as income in the UC calculation. They’ve done the maths!
Thanks! Regs 66 and & 74 ... found just after I put this post on so now feeling silly - but much reassured by your reply.
R(IS)10/05 is nice on these scenarios- it is the duty of the DM to obtain sufficient info to ensure that none of the other heads of entitlement to IS might apply before giving supersession to end award.
16. As there are 24 prescribed categories at present, the fact that a claimant no longer falls within one category will not usually be a ground for superseding a decision awarding income support unless, on a balance of probabilities, he or she does not fall within any other prescribed category. There will be occasions when the Secretary of State has to make further enquiries before he can be satisfied that that is the case (see, for example, CIS/3781/2002 in which Mr Commissioner Rowland directed the Secretary of State to conduct a personal capability assessment of a claimant who had previously qualified for income support as a carer but also claimed to be incapable of work). The only circumstance in which a claimant’s ceasing to fall within one of the prescribed categories will, of itself, justify supersession is where that change necessarily entails a change in the rate at which benefit is paid (for example, when a person who is in receipt of the disability premium ceases to be incapable of work).