Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Transitional Element for Tax Credit-only claimants
But they’ll need to know the amount of capital to calculate indicative UC
But they’ll need to know the amount of capital to calculate indicative UC
Slaps forehead <duh>
For anyone else considering the differences between DWP practice and the legislation, I have the following differences. Would be interested to hear any comments.
1. The housing element is never included by DWP in the indicative UC amount for tax credit only migrations.
2. The carer element is not included by DWP in the indicative UC amount when the claimant does not have a Carer Premium on IS/ESA/JSA (certainly where CA has not been claimed, and possibly even where CA has been claimed).
3. Where the claimant has a 19-year-old in full-time non-advanced education on their tax credits, then DWP will include them in the indicative UC amount even when it has passed the 1st Sep after their 19th birthday.
4. Where the claimant has not informed HMRC about a child on DLA, then the indicative UC amount will not include the additional amount for a disabled child despite it being declared in the UC claim.
There are also two other things which I’m not sure about:
5. DWP’s calculator for converting gross income from tax credits to net income for the indicative UC amount seems to ignore Class 2 NICs. It also gives two personal allowances if a claimant is both employed and self-employed. The reason I’m not sure here is because the Regs do seem to give the SoS quite some leeway in making the conversion.
6. The implementation of the benefit cap within the total legacy amount isn’t very clear.
So just out of meeting - given that we sent so many questions in beforehand, it was extremely disappointing that so few of them were answered - attached are my notes - others who were at meeting please do correct, add.
The main thing they seemed to clarify is that their interpretation of reg 54(1) is that they don’t included housing costs or carer status in indicative UC award if there is no HB or CA in payment even though they have been declared in UC claim - they are adamant that this is correct and are even considering clarification to the legislation to make it clear that is the case - don’t know if that impacts on your calculator Charles??
Just to follow on from a point touched on in Daphne’s notes attached to the quoted post - DWP have told CPAG that the transitional element calculation can be amended to reflect certain changes (for example a decision after migration day awarding DLA for a child from a date prior to the migration day), even if an application for revision had not been made prior to the migration day.
Just added a new online event from Housing Systems:
Webinar: Managed Migration - Calculating the Transitional Element for Tax Credit-only claimants (9 November 2023)
Just to follow on from a point touched on in Daphne’s notes attached to the quoted post - DWP have told CPAG that the transitional element calculation can be amended to reflect certain changes (for example a decision after migration day awarding DLA for a child from a date prior to the migration day), even if an application for revision had not been made prior to the migration day.
Problem is, there is a huge gulf between “can be amended” and “will be amended”....
Just to follow on from a point touched on in Daphne’s notes attached to the quoted post - DWP have told CPAG that the transitional element calculation can be amended to reflect certain changes (for example a decision after migration day awarding DLA for a child from a date prior to the migration day), even if an application for revision had not been made prior to the migration day.
Problem is, there is a huge gulf between “can be amended” and “will be amended”....
And also, do they think the legislation allows for this, or are they doing it despite the legislation not allowing it?
And also, do they think the legislation allows for this, or are they doing it despite the legislation not allowing it?
Hi Charles - they specifically said that they think the legislation allows for this
And also, do they think the legislation allows for this, or are they doing it despite the legislation not allowing it?
Hi Charles - they specifically said that they think the legislation allows for this
Interesting. Did they say why they think the requirement for the total legacy amount for tax credits to be calculated “on the basis of the information as to the claimant’s circumstances held by HMRC on [migration] day” (UC(TP) Regs, Reg 53(2)(a)) doesn’t apply?
(And similar for other legacy benefits, and for the indicative UC amount calculation.)
Knowing as I do that Charles does not post without having thoroughly researched an issue, I’m assuming there is a lacuna in Reg 62?
If so, am I on the right lines here: is there a lacuna where the subsequent award of another benefit does not arise from a pre-existing appeal, application for revision or supersession; or from an official error, misrepresentation or failure to disclose? In particular, an undecided claim for another state benefit is not covered by Reg 62, is that right?
This will alter the transitional element where the effect of that other benefit would be different as between (a) the legacy amount and (b) the indicative UC amount, for example:
- top rate of DLA(c) awarded to a child
- a working renter becomes entitled to PIP(dl) and becomes exempt from non-dep deductions
‘fraid not Charles
Knowing as I do that Charles does not post without having thoroughly researched an issue, I’m assuming there is a lacuna in Reg 62?
If so, am I on the right lines here: is there a lacuna where the subsequent award of another benefit does not arise from a pre-existing appeal, application for revision or supersession; or from an official error, misrepresentation or failure to disclose? In particular, an undecided claim for another state benefit is not covered by Reg 62, is that right?
This will alter the transitional element where the effect of that other benefit would be different as between (a) the legacy amount and (b) the indicative UC amount, for example:
- top rate of DLA(c) awarded to a child
- a working renter becomes entitled to PIP(dl) and becomes exempt from non-dep deductions
Yes, exactly. (Although I think you probably mean lower/middle rate DLA.)
[ Edited: 6 Nov 2023 at 02:55 pm by Charles ]‘fraid not Charles
I can’t imagine why I thought that would be the case!
[quote author=“Charles” date=“1699282332"I think you probably mean lower/middle rate DLA.)
Yes I did. Also don’t know why I said “working renter”, any renter will do. Glad to know I’m just about keeping up with all this stuff!
[ Edited: 6 Nov 2023 at 03:22 pm by HB Anorak ]
Complex TP element calculation has lead to first UC payment not being received
Hope this is the most appropriate thread…...
Cl was a TC claimant only ( CTC x2 and WTC). A few days after receiving Managed migration notice, cl left their job and eldest daughter started FT Higher education. Cl informed HMRC of their c in c . Their last payment of TC included a payment for their eldest daughter and WTC 4 week roll on
Cl then applied for UC using the managed migration route and claimed for support towards their rent and Child element for one child, no earnings.
Cl applied for and received an AP of £800, not the maximum allowed
Cl was told to expect their first full payment on the 29th Oct. No forecast of the expected amount was ever provided.
No payment was received. Cl called UC and was promised a 48 hr call back
No call back or payment was received
Cl wrote a note in their junl explaining no call back or money
Another 48 hour call back was promised. Again this was not received
Cl called UC again today as they are now desperate for money and need to pay their rent. Another 48 hour call back was promised.
Cl confirmed that as of today, their UC account does not show the amount of the expected payment.
Suggested that if cl does not receive call back and monies tomorrow then to make a complaint.
Has anyone else experienced UC suspending payments where their automated calculation of TPE is expected to result in an overpayment?
What else can the cl do other than be supported to compete a pre-action protocol letter?