Reply To: Amendment 9 – Oh what fun!


Mark – case studies a & b

I realise that this is a bit late but it has only just dawned on me.

[b:7503cfacd1]Case study A: Arthur Spratt.[/b:7503cfacd1]

As discussed the period length in this case study is wrong. It quotes 340 days as the period from the award letter date to the end of the award. It is actually 350 days.

This we already knew because several people have mentioned and confirmed that.

However, I have just spotted that the arrears amount (which caused some controversy) IS based on a 350 day period. It is 16 days arrears – it should be 26 days arrears.

Once you adjust the case study example by increasing the arrears to the correct amount it works the way we would expect.

Seemingly there was some debate at the DWP about what period to use for the Case Study. They obviously changed their minds part way through from 350 days to 340 days – but then failed to get all the elements of the calc into order.

My guess about the way the example should read is:

Award letter date: 02/05/2003
Whole award: £1991.04
Arrears: £141.44

£1991.04 – £141.44 = £1849.60 Div by 340 X 7 = £38.08


Award letter date: 22/04/2003
Whole award: £1991.04
Arrears: £87.04

£1991.04 – £87.04 = £1904 Div by 350 X 7 = £38.08

Either way the result comes out with £38.08 pw assessed TC income. (i.e. the standard weekly rate – 1991.04 div by 366 X 7)