Can forfeited cESA count as notional income on a PC claim?

I’m never quite sure how to advise male clients who are between the qualifying age for PC and state pension age, who are facing an IB/ESA conversion assessment or a cESA re-assessment and who would qualify for an amount of additional PC equivalent to the cESA they would lose if they fail the assessment.

Generally speaking I advise them that a cESA award may be more advantageous to them than the same amount of additional PC at some point in the future if there is a change in their circumstances before they reach state pension age. I also tell them that they can go into the assessment safe in the knowledge that whatever the outcome they cannot be worse off than they were beforehand.

If the client discounts the possibility of the first of these (which they usually do), the second begs the question of whether the client can simply opt out of the IB/ESA re-assessment/cESA re-assessment before undergoing it, forfeit their (prospective) cESA award and claim the additional PC without all the fuss involved in completing a questionnaire and attending a face-to-face assessment.

What holds me back in telling clients they can do this is the possibility that the Pension Service may treat cESA forfeited by the claimant in this way as notional income.

Am I being over-cautious? Is there any evidence that claimants who have done this have fallen foul of a notional income decision? Or any that they have not?

Thank you

I have never known it arise (and have had more than a few clients decide to take that option with no subsequent problems) but I agree that the risk is there (so advise accordingly). Not much help I know.

Technically it can be classed as deprivation, and therefore the CBESA could hypothetically be treat as notional.

My normal advice is that I ask the client to call the pension service and ask them permission to close ESA and claim PC instead, as its easier and cheaper to administer one benefit instead of two. There is no “extra” benefit claimable as the amounts will be the same, so the deprivation with the intent of claiming extra benefit shouldnt fly here perhaps??

So far I havent had a single client refused PC on this basis.