Couples on ESA and permitted work

Hi all

Just seeking a second opinion on some seemingly illogical advice…

Scenario is that partner 1 receives cbESA (legacy). Partner 2 receives irESA. Both in support group. Partner 1 starts work but this is not treated as permitted work for irESA claim and has been queried.

I think it is correct - ESA regs allow cbESA claimant to continue to be entitled to cbESA as the work falls under PW rules.

But the partner’s earnings cannot be PW for the irESA claim so are taken into account subject to £20 disregard.

Please correct me!

If I’ve grasped what you’re saying, the solution seems to me to be that the partner who is doing the permitted work claims income-based ESA on top of their cont-based ESA and the partner on income-based only relinquishes theirs.  That way the earnings don’t affect the ESA at all.

I should add that the above will only work if the contribution-based ESA is old style

Could you rely on Reg 83 to argue that the reference to a “claimant” in para 5 of Schedule 7 should be interpreted to include a partner who also has LCW?

The careful distinction between a partner and a claimant for the purpose of earnings disregards is necessary for cases where the partner does not have LCW.  Where the partner is also undertaking permitted work, the provisions referring to a claimant should apply equally to that partner.

I don’t normally deal with ESA, so this might be an argument that has been tested and debunked, apologies if that is the case.

Thanks both.

Unfortunately we’re looking at this some time after benefit has been terminated otherwise I would have taken the same approach Helen.

Thanks HB Anorak - I had considered this but was getting tied up with sch 7, para 6 which draws a distinction between claimant and partner when it comes to PW and earnings disregards, limiting partner’s disregard to £20.

In this scenario though the irESA claimant was not working and not accessing a PW disregard themselves so I’m now thinking para 6 doesn’t bite at all and full disregard should apply as you describe HB Anorak.

Yes, para 6 is limiting the aggregate disregard in a case where the partner doesn’t have LCW.  I think para 5 is the relevant bit, reading “partner” for “claimant” in accordance with Reg 83