Extended Payment

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22517
    Louise Morritt
    Participant

    We have a difference of opinion.

    Would anyone be able to clarify if a claimant has to be working 16 hours or more to qualify for an Extended Payment?

    #8414
    Carol Meredith
    Participant

    I don’t think that they do. I think that it is just enough that their hours etc are enough to take them off IS/JSA provided of course they satisfy all the other criteria.

    #8415
    David
    Participant

    I disagree – it has to be full time work ie 16 hours+

    #8416
    markp
    Participant

    Inclined to agree with Carol. The Regs do not say full – time employment. They simply state

    (1) Commencing employment as an employed or self – employed earner; or

    (2) Increasing their earnings from such employment: or

    (3) Increasing the number of hours worked in such employment.

    There is no mention of the number of hours in anything so it seems to reflect that the claimant loses entitlement to IS, JSA(IB), IB or SDA as appropriate.

    Perhaps the Regs were intended to cover full – time work but that’s not what they actually seem to say.

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

    #8417
    APT
    Participant

    [quote:6ae86f1486=”mark p”]Inclined to agree with Carol. The Regs do not say full – time employment. They simply state

    (1) Commencing employment as an employed or self – employed earner; or

    (2) Increasing their earnings from such employment: or

    (3) Increasing the number of hours worked in such employment.

    There is no mention of the number of hours in anything so it seems to reflect that the claimant loses entitlement to IS, JSA(IB), IB or SDA as appropriate.

    Perhaps the Regs were intended to cover full – time work but that’s not what they actually seem to say.[/quote:6ae86f1486]

    The above is what is stated in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 (2006), dealing with notification from the Secretary of State, however Paragraph 2 goes on to state:

    [i:6ae86f1486]The conditions prescribed in this paragraph are that the claimant or the claimant’s partner-
    (a) notifies either the designated office or an appropriate DWP office that he or his partner-
    (i) has commenced, or is about to commence, [b:6ae86f1486]remunerative work [/b:6ae86f1486]
    (ii) has commenced, or is about to commence, reciving renumeration for work or an increased amount of remuneration for work; or
    (iii) has commenced, or is about to commence, an increased number of hours for work[/i:6ae86f1486]

    So it is a condition that the claimant tells us or the DWP that that work is remunerative.

    Of course, you could further argue that “remunerative work” is only specific to people staring work rather than increased hours or earnings, but that might just muddy the waters somewhat. πŸ˜‰

    #8418
    Mark
    Participant

    I agree with Carol. APT is taking statutory interpretation a bit too literally – just because it doesnt say “or” after para 2(a)(i) does not mean that it means “and”. This is clearly a list of options. It is either (i), (ii) or (iii), not (i) AND (ii) or (iii).

    If you want proof of this look at para 2(b) of the same schedule. It is clearly envisaging that there are 3 different possibilities – not 2.

    #8419
    Mark
    Participant

    Sorry….I should also have added why you can tell that there are 3 possibilities from 2(b). The first possibility is to count the 4 weeks from when the person “first undertakes the remunerative work”. But if this was also a prerequisite for the other 2 options then they would never apply -because if the remunerative work had begun sooner than an increase in hours or earnings then the IS/JSA(IB) must have come to an end at that point.

    #8420
    APT
    Participant

    [quote:50403a1e35=”Mark”]I agree with Carol. APT is taking statutory interpretation a bit too literally – just because it doesnt say “or” after para 2(a)(i) does not mean that it means “and”. This is clearly a list of options. It is either (i), (ii) or (iii), not (i) AND (ii) or (iii).

    If you want proof of this look at para 2(b) of the same schedule. It is clearly envisaging that there are 3 different possibilities – not 2.[/quote:50403a1e35]

    I made no mention that there were only two possibilites.

    The question that started this thread was whether somebody had to be in remunerative work to receive an EP. In your quoting of paragraph 1 of S7 you rightly pointed out that there is no mention of it being remuneraticve work. My quoting of paragraph 2 was to higlight that at the point that an EP is claimed the first of the three options does state that it must be remunerative work.

    The only time I (sort of) mentioned there only being two possibilites was in my final paragraph where I was mentioning that the term remunerative work is only present in staring work (2(a)(i)) and not in increased hours (2(a)(ii)) or earnings (2(a)(iii))

    #8421
    JamesPickering
    Participant

    [quote:75bba79e13]EP – IS/JSA(IB) Scheme
    The qualifying conditions

    9.40 To be eligible for an EP, the claimant must

    1. be receiving IS or JSA(IB) which ends because they or their partner start work or increase their hours of work to at least 16 (24 in the case of a partner) or their earnings sufficiently to take them off IS/JSA(IB), The new job or increase in hours/earnings must be expected to last for at least five weeks, and

    2. for at least 26 weeks immediately before the date IS or JSA(IB) entitlement ends, have been continuously

    a. registering as available for and actively seeking work, or registering as available, actively seeking work and getting JSA(IB) because of low earnings. Periods of receiving contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA(Cont)), without IS or JSA(IB), will count towards the 26 weeks, but the claimant must be

    b. receiving IS or JSA(IB) when they or their partner start work or increase their hours/earnings, or
    receiving IS or JSA(IB)
    i. as a lone parent
    ii. as a carer and receiving the carer premium
    iii. while on a Government training scheme
    iv. while receiving the disability premium
    v. because they are incapable of work, or

    c any combination of the above

    3. be liable for rent or council tax (CT)
    a. immediately before IS or JSA(IB) ended
    b. for the whole of the EP period, unless the claimant moves house, see HB claimant changes address or CTB claimant changes address within the EP period later in this section

    HB Reg 62A & Sch 5A
    CTB Reg 51(6), 53A & Sch 5A

    9.41 Additionally, the new job or increase in hours/earnings must be expected to last for at least five weeks.

    [/quote:75bba79e13]

    This is an extract from the HB Guidance Manual.

    #8422
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Going back to Louise’s original question, my answer is they do not have to be working 16 hours. 8)
    Quote from above (my “bold” bits) πŸ˜‰
    “be receiving IS or JSA(IB) which ends because they or their partner start work or increase their hours of work to at least 16 (24 in the case of a partner) or [b:eeede962ae]their earnings sufficiently to take them off IS/JSA(IB), [/b:eeede962ae]The new job or increase in hours/earnings must be expected to last for at least five weeks, and ” etc etc πŸ™„

    This to me means that they can increase their wage (and lets face it, if they were getting IS / JSA(IB) before, and job will be an increase in wage – from nil to???) and their wage becomes Β£1000 per hour, then definate EP as they would, presumably, be going off benefit even if they only worked a couple of hours a week.

    P.S. I’m looking for a job like that as well – any ideas welcome!! 8) πŸ˜€
    Would even consider jobshare – 3 hours per week each between 12 of us – any other takers?? 😯 πŸ˜‰ 8) πŸ™„

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.