× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Suplus earnings

lost in Granite
forum member

Training and Appeals team, glasgow city council welfare rights

Send message

Total Posts: 72

Joined: 11 March 2015

Can someone explain “the nil UC threshold” formula to be found in “The Universal Credit (Surpluses and Self-employed losses) Amendment Regulations 2015.” SI 2015/345
The formula reads

(M-U)x100+WA

If I put numbers into the formula I get an unlikely answer.

The simplest case would be single person, over 25, no housing costs and no unearned income.

That gives

(317.82-0)x100 + 111 =unlikely answer

So what am I doing wrong?

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2914

Joined: 12 March 2013

The pdf on legislation.gov.uk doesn’t seem to displaying correctly.  Obviously there is a 65 missing from that formula:  it should be ((M - U) / 65 x 100) + WA

lost in Granite
forum member

Training and Appeals team, glasgow city council welfare rights

Send message

Total Posts: 72

Joined: 11 March 2015

thanks for getting back so quickly and your version of the formula makes way more sense. Can you tell me where you get it from. Thanks

Jon Blackwell
forum member

Programmer - Lisson Grove Benefits Program, Brighton

Send message

Total Posts: 501

Joined: 18 June 2010

The correct formula appears in the draft version of the regs…

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364572/uc-earnings-draft-regulations.pdf


I don’t think a correction slip was ever issued for this and it seems to have vanished in LRSS

I can’t find it in

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/345/pdfs/uksi_20150345_310815_en.pdf

nor

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/pdfs/uksi_20130376_310815_en.pdf

HB Anorak
forum member

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

Send message

Total Posts: 2914

Joined: 12 March 2013

I remember it being in the draft of the SI and because it makes sense that way I had never thought to check it again until you mentioned it today.  Not sure now if there is a correctly-displayed official version on the web anymore

PS Snap!

LITRG
forum member

Low Incomes Tax Reform Group

Send message

Total Posts: 107

Joined: 16 June 2010

It was correct in the draft regulations, but it was incorrect in the final version. As you say it was missing a 65. I mentioned it to DWP when the Regs were published.

They have put an amendment through in some recent regs: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1754/made
Reg 8

Victoria