Extended Payment scenario

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31755
    caroline c
    Participant

    Hi,

    My Collegue has the following query,

    “Could I canvas opinion on this extended payment scenario?

    Claimant has been signing on and has an ‘open and active’ claim for JSA for over 26 weeks.

    For 3 weeks within that period she has had no actual JSA paid, but the claim was not cancelled and remained ‘open and active’ and she continued to sign on. She just has nil award.

    It appears that her work is sporadic and may sometimes take her over the JSA threshold for occasional weeks.

    We have not paid extended payment due to the nil entitlement weeks.

    The claimant states she has been told she is entitled to the extended payment due to the fact she continued to sign on and her claim remained ‘open and active’ for 26 weeks.

    I have discarded Ward and Zebedee’s general description and am looking at the actual regulations. It the second part of the regulations (about signing on and available for work) that is making me have ‘doubts’.

    What does everyone else think?’’

    Cheers Neil

    Neil Watkin
    Appeals Officer”

    Thanks, Caroline

    #88825
    dayglow
    Participant

    It could be argued that there is not an entitlement to an EP, as Reg 72(1)(a) states

    Extended Payments

    72.—

    (1) A claimant who is entitled to housing benefit (by virtue of the general conditions of entitlement) shall be entitled to an extended payment where—

    (a) the claimant or the claimant’s partner was [b:65984097a0]entitled[/b:65984097a0] to a qualifying income-related benefit;

    Therefore I would argue that while she may well have continued to register with the JCP and be “open and active” claim, there has not actually been an entitlement for the 26 week period.

    This is just my opinion.

    #88826
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Personally, i would say no, unless she satisfied 72(2).

    [quote:08b70d83ee]72.—

    (1) A claimant who is entitled to housing benefit (by virtue of the general conditions of entitlement) shall be entitled to an extended payment where—

    (a) the claimant or the claimant’s partner was entitled to a qualifying income-related benefit;

    (b) entitlement to a qualifying income-related benefit ceased because the claimant or the claimant’s partner—

    (i) commenced employment as an employed or self-employed earner;

    (ii) increased their earnings from such employment; or

    (ii) increased the number of hours worked in such employment,

    and that employment is or, as the case may be, increased earnings or increased number of hours are expected to last five weeks or more; and

    (c) the claimant or the claimant’s partner had been [b:08b70d83ee]entitled to and in receipt of[/b:08b70d83ee] a qualifying income-related benefit, jobseeker’s allowance or a combination of those benefits for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks before the day on which the entitlement to a qualifying income-related benefit ceased.

    (2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c), a claimant or a claimant’s partner is to be treated as having been entitled to and in receipt of a qualifying income-related benefit or jobseeker’s allowance during any period of less than five weeks in respect of which the claimant or the claimant’s partner was not entitled to any of those benefits because the claimant or the claimant’s partner was engaged in remunerative work as a consequence of their participation in an employment zone programme.[/quote:08b70d83ee]

    The fact that 72(2) exists suggest this is the only circumstance where a claimant would be entitled to an EP despite breaks in the passported benefit while engaged in remunerative work.

    At least that is how i read it…

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.