Terms & Conditions

[hwall75]

Sorry if this has been asked before. One member of a mixed age couple started a temporary job that knocked them off HB and PCGC. The job ended and they want their HB reinstated but we advised them they would have to claim UC and they have now appealed.
Do they have any right of appeal against not being able to make a HB claim (they havent actually submitted a new application as we have told them they can’t) or is their only right of appeal against the decision that they no longer qualified for HB in the first place (which was correct based on their income and they have not disputed the income used).
Any advice welcome 🙂

[pbirks]

was the decision acurrent one or a closed period supersession?
if they worked for 6 weeks over Easter and the job finished on 2 May and you did an assessment on 9 May that showed they were entitled again from 8 May 2023, thern its a closed period supersession and HB survices to fight another day.

If they told you assessed it while they were working based on the correct income and that showed nil entitlement, the HB ends and the only way to revive it is if theres an error with that decision.

WE had acustomer appeal – they did a mutual exchange from one area to our area – were on HB at old address and obviously we turned dowen the new claim as working age – customer said he wouldnrt have accepted to move had he realised – judge said while he was sypathrtic to the customers circumstances, there was no way to accept a new claim. ]
but your couple havent made a new claim so theres no decion to appeal against ( you havent refused a claim because it hasnt been made – so they cant appeal about that)

[Andy Thurman]

“you havent refused a claim because it hasnt been made – so they cant appeal about that”

We need to be careful with our administration in these matters.

In this instance, it would arguably not be in the claimant’s best interests at all (no chance of success at tribunal) but if we advise we will not accept/they cannot make a claim, which would allow a decision to be made and appeal rights offered, we are interfering with those rights. Something like “You can submit a claim but I can advise you now that, as you are a MAC, we would have no choice but to decide we could not pay it. You are able to claim Universal Credit to cover your Housing costs.”

To cover yourself, if they want to pursue an appeal, I would invite them to make a claim so that you can formalise the decision not to pay and allow them the opportunity for that appeal.

The closed period supersession possibility should definitely be explored first – if there was an entitlement to HB at on the date of the decision, everything else becomes irrelevant although it would also give them a route back on to Pension Credit.

[peterdelamothe]

If pbirks is right in his analysis then what they are trying to appeal against is the legal provision that introduced mixed age rules. Long time ago now…the WRA that introduced universal credit I think although implementation of the mixed age rule was held back for some years.

You could refer it to a Tribunal as misconceived I guess. No claim made so I dont see that you need to do that…but some like to tie up the loose ends.

A loss of around £8000 per year in benefits is likely although it can be more so I can understand the appellant asking why no-one explained the implications of a move. Of course they may not have asked anyone but I remember saying when it came in that it was going to be the biggest loss in the Welfare State I can remember for what is partly just an admin change and partly just taking a short term job.

[hwall75]

Oh blimey thanks both.

Yes you have a point with our wording Andy, we’ll keep that in mind 🙂

Please could I run the dates past you and see what you think?

We received ATLAS on 16/06/23 to say PCGC ended 14/05/23.

We checked VEP on 05/07/23 which shows partner’s start and end date of employment (started 02/05/23, ended 07/06/23).

On 11/07/23 we updated the claim and, as they did not qualify from 22/05/23 we cancelled their HB claim from 21/05/23.

However, if they would have qualified on 11/07/23 based on their income without wages then does this mean the HB claim should continue – I’m now thinking we’re wrong and it should??

[pbirks]

when you assessed it on 5 July, , you knwew the job had ended on 7 JUne – almost a month previous to the assessment – – so if you kept those earings in the claim past 7 June, then the claim is wrong and warrants an anytime revision ( because it was the LA that input the dates wrong and accepted a calculation they knew contained incorrect financial information. !)

you need to assess the claim based on their actual income once the job ended – presumably state pension and ???? to see if they qualifiued – if so HB continues.

[hwall75]

Thank you, I think we thought that the MAC changes meant that a gap in HB entitlement and no PCGC entitlement would prompt a move to UC as we haven’t had this exact scenario before but all now much clearer – thanks everyone for your help 🙂

[Andy Thurman]

Apologies – please hold for a moment!

I’m such a fan of CPS (weird though that may be) that I jumped on board. Just sense checking whether this may be the exception on when it can be used…

[Andy Thurman]

OK, I’m feeling reassured. CPS can apply.

As they have not engaged any of the triggers forcing a termination of HB and do not need to make a new claim, they are OK.

[Peter Barker]

I agree, this is a textbook closed period supersession. They really are a thing by the way, I cannot understand why some people are sceptical.

Mixed age couples have two problems with HB:

– they might experience an event that causes HB to terminate under Article 6 of the No 31 Order – I share Andy’s caution about using a CPS to body-swerve Article 6
– they cannot make new HB claims

It was making a new claim that was the problem here. HB didn’t terminate because of an article 6 event, the claimant simply wasn’t entitled because they had too much money. Had all of that happened in “real time”, the situation on the ground in June would have been that you had an ex-claimant who was now unable to make a new claim. But you only dealt with it in July, by which time the entitlement conditions were once more satisfied. That should have been a routine and uncontroversial CPS – it’s what they are for.

[peterdelamothe]

Those who report a change in circs late can be much better off than those who report on time? It must be magic.

hwall75…you and your colleagues did nothing wrong. Technically you are correct. No entitlement. A new claim cannot be made. Claim to UC is the next step. That is logical and correct.

There is however this rather wiffy closed period supersession (CPS) idea that (in my view) was invented by a Judge to resolve a specific issue he wanted to fix. He did not realise its use would go beyond that. I asked Judge Jacobs about it once. He indicated that he was and is not impressed and that he is not the only UT Judge who thinks that. You will not find it mentioned much if at all in their decisions. It is not mentioned in any Act or regulations. A “get out of jail card” that is pulled out of the hat when there is nothing else to rely on. Smoke and mirrors. In my view. Some welfare officers will mention it and hold their nose at the same time.

We have on this thread the CPS fan club (with all respect to them). I am not a fan. I think here it is being used to almost sabotage the clear policy that all working age claimants move to UC (except in very limited circs). Such claimants have had a fantastic run. 7 years since mixed age regs came in but as I say above they sure take a hit.

Approx 30 per cent of members on hbinfo believe in CPS and 70 per cent dont. The loss in moving to UC from HB mixed age is so significant that it is life changing and not for the better. I can well understand the financial issues here. As others on hbinfo have mentioned, Tribunal Judges are not very impressed and the usual result of such an appeal is (they report)”very sorry….nothing I can do…..you must claim UC”.

Out of interest hbinfo got more queries about mixed age issues in the first part of this year than any other. What usually happens is the couple are getting full or a lot of their rent paid by HB…lose their entitlement protection for various reasons….go off to claim UC housing costs…and are then told they do not qualify for anything. Ouch.

[Peter Barker]

I think we might feature this thread in the Forum FAQs slot at the conference!

[Author]

Posts