Terms & Conditions

[janet13]

I am trying to write some simple guidance for staff in relation to the changes to EP’s from October.
As you know we will be treating EP’s as a change of circs from October. Does this mean that if the customer delays notifying us of their move into work by more than a month we won’t consider an extended payment as it would be a beneficial change?
Customers currently have four weeks to inform us they wish to apply for an EP and I suppose this would also in some way keep the new procedures in line with this requirement?
Any thoughts on this would be gratefully received…

[JHanson]

I would agree with you (unless the LA had reason to extend the month under DMA Reg. 9). The need to notify the LA/DWP within 4 weeks to be paid an EP has been removed. As you state this will be a beneficial change and should be treated in that way – I’m with you.

[shadeycat]

I would disagree. The onus is now on the LA to check if a customer is entitled to an EP or not.
We have the data available to us either through our own records or via the CIS. On the rare occasion that we cannot access the relevent data the DWP will confirm if an EP is applicable.

Sorry missread the question – re the customer notifying the LA

[Anonymous]

Will the EP be an [b:09b8643e3e]advantageous[/b:09b8643e3e] change?

Except in rare cases of the ‘better buy’, when someone gets and EP, thier HB and CTB entitlement remains the same. It doesn’t increase.

[shadeycat]

The EP could be an advantageous – the circular talks about doing a “better-buy” calc for the EP

[Anonymous]

It may be advantageous in a small minority of cases (got to say I’ve never seen one since the start of EPs but I’m sure it must happen somewhere), but is it a change? Same benefit being paid, just for a further 4 weeks. 8)

[cfowkes]

To follow on from this post, am I right in thinking then that if a customer fails to tell us or the DWP that they have started work and we find out say 6 months later we can still pay the EP?

[janet13]

That seems to be the general gist of it. If you found out 6 months down the line, went back and amended the claim based on the new circs and created an overpayment (probably) you’d still have to look at underlying entitlement. If the customer met the criteria for an EP and as long as the EP payment wasn’t more than the original benefit you would award it.
How I love Underlying Entitlement and the joy of trying to explain it our staff…

[cfowkes]

Thanks Janet

[Michelle Howley]

Iasked this question of the DWP and got the following answer

Question

A change of circumstance has to be reported within a month. If it is a detrimental change it is actioned from the date of the change regardless of this timelimit. As the customer is on maximum HB/CTB starting work would always either reduce benefit or it would stay the same (unless a non-dep also moved out at the same time).

If a customer notified us 8 weeks after starting work we would still action the change of circumstance from the date they started work, but, would they be entitled to an EP? I assume that the qualifying condition for an EP of notifying us within 4 weeks of the date they had started work still stands, as I understand the change of circs Regs would not alter this, therefore, in this situation do you agree that the EP would not be paid, but the customer could receive in work benefit if entitled.? ”

Answer

You would need to consider C of C rules Reg 79(1), which is subject to reg 8(3) of DMA regulations.

Looking at the example, this would mean that there is an overpayment that starts when the claimant began working. As any advantageous change takes effect from the date of notification 8 weeks later, there can be no EP as the EP period will have expired before the change of circumstances takes effect. This would mean in practice a claimant now has one month to notify in order to take advantage of an EP, even if payment is only for 4 weeks, because the usual supersession rules apply. This may be extended if reg 9 of the Decisions and Appeals Regs applies.

[helenpaine]

But back to underlying entitlement…..

The claim is amended to take account of the fact the claimant started work 8 weeks ago. If this reduces entitlement to benefit resulting in an overpayment, reg 104 would have to be applied. (1) (c) requires that underlying entitlement be calculated on the basis of the claim as it would have appeared if any change of circumstances had been notified at the time that change occurred.

If that had been the case an EP would have been awarded so has to be taken account of in any calculation of underlying entitlement if there is an overpayment???

Wouldn’t it?

[Author]

Posts