HB transition for MAC

HB main claimant just turning 66 and now in receipt of SRP and highest rate PIP mobility and daily living (ESA ended.)  Partner remains in receipt of ESA Conts based( in Support Group)

As the HB main claimant, the ending of ESA benefit is ending their joint HB award (it has been continually in payment for over 20 years.) 

Do they need to claim UC as a MAC?  The HB circularA9/2019 Mixed age couples: further guidance (revised)
Updated 10 July 2019 states “Where the younger partner is in receipt of Income Support (IS), Jobseeker’s Allowance (income-based) (JSA(IB)), Employment and Support Allowance (income-related) (ESA(IR)), the couple will not be required to claim UC and can continue to receive working age HB if they have an existing claim until there is a relevant change in their circumstances which ends entitlement to those benefits.”  As his appears Conts Based i am assuming this does not apply….

Anxious not to delay as no UC backdating but dont want to move them if its not right…

However, there is also this guidance: “What if the younger member of the couple also has health problems?
The working age member would not be able to make a new claim for Income-Related ESA BUT watch out for
those that may already be in receipt of ‘old style’ Contributory ESA ie on a claim that pre-dates Full Service UC
coming to their area (applicable in this case)”
The working age member could request that the ESA Dept review their award of ESA to include an IncomeRelated top up. This is because they are not making a new claim, just requesting a review of an existing one.
If they are entitled to Income-Related ESA (that will include any pension income the older member has but also
a pensioner premium) then they can stay on IR-ESA. Where HB has been in payment this should continue as
long as there is no full HB week where neither member is entitled to IR-ESA” - does this help?!

Shame they didn’t claim UC whilst the income-related ESA award was in place as that means the LCWRA element can only be included from the fourth AIP from when they do claim UC and they have also missed out on the two-week run-on payments as a result.

They could seek to have the contributory ESA award for the younger partner converted into an income-related ESA award as well but that’s going to take a bit of time and they’ll need to find a way to pay the rent in the meantime. However, if that is achieved, then the younger partner could claim HB again on the basis of their income-related ESA award.

Otherwise, yes it will be UC for this couple as things stand.

There is backdating in UC, but only 1 month - are they within that period?

I don’t think they can make a new HB claim though, even with an irESA top up.

Va1der - 17 August 2023 03:26 PM

There is backdating in UC, but only 1 month - are they within that period?

I don’t think they can make a new HB claim though, even with an irESA top up.

Sorry, yes of course,  think you’re right that no new HB claim is possible.

However, if the income-related ESA award could be backdated to the date of expiry of the older partner’s ESA award, would you be able to argue that the previous HB award should be reinstated I wonder? You’d have a continuous passporting effectively.

Incredible - thanks!
Yes have advised for ESA to be reviewed but that the IR element must be backdated (only a couple of weeks.) 
No backdating in UC sadly and no 2 week overlap etc because HB will have ended in this case if we go that route.  The UC payment is small due to other income whereas if i could keep HB alive - huge difference!

They’d have to, effectively, swap claimants for HB though, wouldn’t they? I don’t see how that’d be possible in situation, unless they stay in specified accommodation (in which case it would be unproblematic anyway).

EDIT: I think the main save would be a combination of a backdated UC claim and a continuous irESA claim - esp if there is an SDP for transitional protection.

If they have not yet gone ahead and claimed UC, HB should be salvageable if you can get continuous entitlement to ESA(ir) by one partner or the other reinstated.

HB can terminate for two reasons:

- One of the mixed age couple events in article 6(2) of the No 31 Order.  Continuous ESA(ir) would prevent Article 6(2) from being triggered as HB remains under the working age regs even if the ESA claimant and the HB claimant are not the same person; or
- If the HB claimant claims UC.  If they have done that now, HB terminates for that reason irrespective of ESA (and indeed ESA(ir) is abolished for the younger partner if s/he claims UC)

As others have said, what you need is for the decision ending HB to be revised on the grounds that the award of ESA(ir) to the younger partner retrospectively removes the basis for it terminating.  A new HB claim cannot be made.

I’m glad to be wrong about that one. Well, for future reference anyway (and for OP) Don’t think I’ve advised many people in this circumstance, but I can think of at least a couple, and I would almost certainly have misadvised them.