Earnings threshold - health conditions

I have a UC client working 20 hours pw ( 2 jobs at 10 hours pw) at minimum wage. She has a range of health issues, and is required to do 15 hours pw job searching.

Her doctor has issued a “fit note” saying that working more than 20 hours pw would be injurious to her health. The local JC are completely stumped by this and have refused to accept the “fit note”. She was told that the working hours cannot be varied.

Is there any way that this can be addressed without having to go through the work capability assessment process?

If she has to go through the process (which I fear would not be successful), how does she go about getting herself assessed?

would she not be better going through the assessment anyway as it could get her another element in her award? or do you mean to get her LCFWRA?

20 hours at NMW is too much earnings to allow a WCA (UC reg 41).

Anyway, UC reg 97(2) and 88(2) should allow discretion on the 35 hours ..

(2) In the case of a claimant who is a relevant carer or a responsible carer or who has a physical or mental impairment, a work search and work availability requirement must be limited to the number of hours that is determined to be the claimant’s expected number of hours per week in accordance with regulation 88.

(2) The lesser number of hours is—
...
(c)where the claimant has a physical or mental impairment, the number of hours that the Secretary of State considers is reasonable in light of the impairment.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/contents/made

Not sure of the best way to put this into practice. Ask for a review of the claimant commitment?

Your service user is working 20 hours per week and claiming UC. She is currently not LCW.

As I understand it the DWP may not carry out an assessment unless your service user is in receipt of DLA or PIP. See Regulation 41(2) of the UC Regulations.

What has to be addressed is the expected hours requirements, currently set at 35 hours as per Regulation 88, but see 88(2)(c).

Thanks so much. I’ll advise her to seek a revision under 88 (2) c.

Most informative.

Thanks again.