× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit migration  →  Thread

UC MM - one member has NRTPF

RAISE Advice
forum member

RAISE Benefits Advice Team, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 154

Joined: 21 June 2010

We have a couple with 1 dependent child, Husband has NRTPF, is student and working 30 hours pw.
Currently receiving CHB, CTC/WTC.
They have been issued with an Migration Notice.
My question is, assuming UC treats claim as single person with 1 x dep,  but uses husbands earnings in calculation, are they treated as clients Earned Income and attract a work allowance or “Unearned income” ?
Thanks in advance

[ Edited: 8 Apr 2024 at 11:36 pm by RAISE Advice ]
Mark Willis
forum member

Welfare rights worker - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 147

Joined: 17 June 2010

Hi RAISE
It should be earned income, so apply work allowance and taper:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/22
(3) In the case of an award where the claimant is a member of a couple, but makes a claim as a single person, the amount to be deducted from the maximum amount in accordance with section 8(3) of the Act is the same as the amount that would be deducted in accordance with paragraph (1) if the couple were joint claimants.
As I understand it, there would not be a transitional element in these cases due to UC(TP) Reg 50(2)(a)

Mark

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2943

Joined: 12 March 2013

Interesting point about Reg 50(2)(a).  I’m sure DWP will do as you suggest, but I’m not so sure the regulation achieves that.

There is a difference between being disaggregated and not a couple for UC purposes on the one hand, and being a member of a couple who claims as a single person on the other.  Reg 50(2) catches the former but not the latter I would say.

People caught by Reg 50(2) would be:

- couples who separated, or one partner died, between the migration notice and the UC claim
- couples who have been, or will be, living apart for between 6 months and 52 weeks

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 620

Joined: 1 October 2018

Do they have over £16k?

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1434

Joined: 27 February 2019

HB Anorak - 09 April 2024 05:12 PM

Interesting point about Reg 50(2)(a).  I’m sure DWP will do as you suggest, but I’m not so sure the regulation achieves that.

There is a difference between being disaggregated and not a couple for UC purposes on the one hand, and being a member of a couple who claims as a single person on the other.  Reg 50(2) catches the former but not the latter I would say.

People caught by Reg 50(2) would be:

- couples who separated, or one partner died, between the migration notice and the UC claim
- couples who have been, or will be, living apart for between 6 months and 52 weeks

This is not something I had previously considered, but looking through the Regs, I agree with Peter.

In fact, I’m not convinced DWP will even do as Mark suggests. I’ve looked at the various EMs and guidance for the current Reg 50(2) and its predecessors (going all the way back to the original EM issued to the SSAC with the draft managed migration regs), and the only examples ever given (that I can see) are cases like those given by Peter. No cases covered by the UC Regs, Reg. 3(3) are ever mentioned.

The necessity for a specific reference to Reg. 3(3) in the TP Regs, Reg. 56(4)(b) also seems to back this up.

[ Edited: 9 Apr 2024 at 10:31 pm by Charles ]
RAISE Advice
forum member

RAISE Benefits Advice Team, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 154

Joined: 21 June 2010

Thank you all for your comments

In response to Owen they have no savings and are struggling massively financially

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 620

Joined: 1 October 2018

DWP assure us that they will act in the way that Mark says.  Their reasons are murky.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 1434

Joined: 27 February 2019

Owen_Stevens - 10 April 2024 09:09 AM

DWP assure us that they will act in the way that Mark says.  Their reasons are murky.

Interesting, thanks.

Mark Willis
forum member

Welfare rights worker - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 147

Joined: 17 June 2010

Yes, it’s not straightforward. The concern in these cases was that receiving a transitional element based on what the couple were entitled to in tax credits (which was specifically excluded from having recourse to public funds) means a higher amount of UC payable due to partner’s presence (which is not specifically excluded from having recourse to public funds), which might impact on the partner’s status. But that is an immigration matter, I could not possibly comment.
Mark