Terms & Conditions

[arenton]

hello folks,

Wonder if anyone can help me?

I have a case where the claimant has applied for HB/CTB as she has low income. She gets DLA and therefore gets the disabled premium in her Applicable Amount. She also gets WTC which includes the Disability Element and the “50+ Element”. Because she gets WTC at all the IR must have assessed her hours of work as being 16 hours per week or above.

However- crucially- for the period she wants to claim HB/CTB her average number of hours worked are less than 16.

My question is- should i be giving her the £14.90 EI disregard in her HB/CTB calc??

I was thinking that i should- mainly because of her WTC situation.

But the way para 16 of Schedule 3 is worded- it would appear that it requires the claimant to be both working 16 hours AND get the Disability element, or 50+ element in WTC.

Can anybody advise me what the correct course of action would be in this case?

[Anonymous]

Hi arenton….thought I’d follow your fine example and deliver some reciprocation….or at least my thoughts anyway….

I would not award the extra £14.90 disregard on the grounds that average hours were not 16 or more. Don’t think the hours for WTC purposes is relevant here. Actual hours would override tax credit hours but we still use the income.

Willing to be over-ruled though….

[JamesPickering]

I agree with Andy C that I would not award the extra disregard as they are not averaging 16 hours work per week.

[jerikaz]

I have doubts about the replies that you have received – purely on the basis that I seem to remember that when tax credits were first introduced/ or was it earlier when WFTC came in – (doubting myself now – brain gets fuddled the longer you work in benefits!!), you could award the extra earnings disregard either when 30 hours was worked [b:a0357e64ef][u:a0357e64ef]or[/u:a0357e64ef][/b:a0357e64ef] if the tax credit award included the premium.

I will try to find the reg to back this up – but I stand to be corrected.

[jerikaz]

Apologies – after checking I cannot see where I have got the above from. I definitely need a break and time to get my brain in working order again! 😳

[Anonymous]

I agree with Jerikaz – the fact they are receiving the extra hours bonus in their WTC entitlement means you should apply the disregard, even if you think they are averaging less than 16 hours a week for some periods. Schedule 4(17)(2) of the HBR 2006.

[jerikaz]

Doh as Homer would say – brain even more confused!!!! Help!!!!!!!!

[chris harvey]

Jerikaz you should not doubt yourself so easily. I agree with andy there are a raft of qualifying conditions for this earnings disregard, any one of them will do and there are a couple of rules linked to the WTC award. If the 30 hour element is included in the WTC award is one and if you get or do not get but are entitled to the 50+ element is the other. In this example as the claimant gets the 50+ element the hours worked are not relevant – they get the disregard.

[arenton]

Thanks very much for all your replies,

I think i’m understanding it better now, and i think i will give her the EI disregard- but only on the basis that she gets the “50+” WTC. (And not because of the disability element)

Having re-read the new schedule 4 (17) (2), (i was looking at the pre 2006 schedule in CPAG and it is set out slightly differently), i think it is saying the following-

1/ Where the person gets the “30hr element” in their award of WTC- they get the EI disregard irrespective of any hours they now work, Sched 4 (17) 2(a)

2/ Where the person gets the “50+” element in their award of WTC- they get the EI Disregard irrespective of the hours they now work Sched 4 (17) 2 (c)

but 3/ i think at Sched 4 (17) 2(b)(iv) it is saying where the claimant…..”is……in remunerative work for on average not less than 16 hours per week, and….(his) applicable amount includes a disability premium….” they get the EI disregard. (ie it is not just tied in with specifically getting the disability element in the WTC, they must ALSO be seen to be working over 16 hrs.)

Do you folks agree with that?

[Anonymous]

I think so, yes.

[chris harvey]

Yes, this is exactly as I understand it

[Author]

Posts