Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I need some advice please. We have a claimant who has been receiving HB/CTB for several years.However, we have had his income as full time earnings.He received max ben since April 2006 as he has hundreds of children and his earnings were very low.The annual uprating meant he moved into maximum benefit.
Recently ,following a VF visit he advised that he was starting work again.It turns out he has been in receipt of JSA since January 2006. So as this is a beneficial change ( the DWP didn’t advise us and he didn’t tell us at the time that he had started to claim JSA) we have only included JSA instead of earnings, to the claim from the Monday following the date of the VF visit ( end of May 2006).
Here is the problem: we have now been advised by DWP that his JSA has ended as he has started work and that he is entitled to a run on.
But as we have not had him in receipt of JSA for the six months, can we give him a run on, and if so, does anyone have any idea how we persuade IWorld to award it without having JSA as income for the six months?

[andyrichards]

If he’s actually been on JSA(I) for 6 months he is entitled to a run-on, regardless of when you started to take it into account in his HB assessment.

I wasn’t aware it was necessary for the JSA(I) to be on Iworld for six months in order for it to grant the run-on. What happens if the claimant was on JSA(I) for six months but only became liable for rent/CT last week, or indeed what happens with a case like yours? Is that right about Iworld?

[andyrichards]

In fact…..in training courses I get people to put run-on’s on claims they only set up the previous week…so I know that the run-on is granted regardless of how long the JSA/IS has been on the claim.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, I thought we probably could. Havent had one before so wasnt sure if Iworld would play ball or not, will give it a go and see what happens!

[Anonymous]

I think an EP is fine in this case.

There is a very slight conflict/overlap between HB Regs 72 & 77 on the one hand and Schedule 7.

Reg 72 says you are entitled to an EP if your HB ends in accordance with Reg 77 [b:286d6ffbb3]and[/b:286d6ffbb3] the conditions in paras 1 & 2 of Schedule 7 are met.

Reg 77 says that HB comes to an end if you have been getting IS/JSA(ib) for at least 26 weeks, without any mention of the DWP having to certify that.

But Schedule 7 para 1(d) says that the DWP must certify the 26-week thing in order to satisfy Reg 72.

If we accept for the moment that both of the above conditions must be satisfied, then there is a separate LA decision to be made under Reg 77 about the length of time for which IS/JSA has been in payment. Your dilemma is: must you deem JSA to have been in payment for only a short time because the claimant did not tell you promptly that he was on JSA?

The answer is no I think. Deeming a change of circumstance to have happened on a particular date is done for the purpose of establishing the effective date of the superseding decision for that change of circumstance under D&A Reg 8(3). When it comes to dealing with the EP, you are not implementing the change of circs where the claimant started to receive JSA – quite the opposite, the change of circs now is that he has stopped receiving it – D&A Reg 8(3) doesn’t apply to that. There is nothing in Reg 72, 77 or Schedule 7 that imports any deeming fiction as regards the period on JSA. So I would say that you must work with the real-life dates of JSA entitlement.

There is also a general principle of interpretation when dealing with deeming provisions, which is that you apply the deeming fiction for its limited purpose only, but do not allow it to spill over into unrelated areas. The purpose of the Reg 8(3) deeming fiction is to prevent the claimant from receiving arrears of benefit after a favourable change. It would be taking the deeming provision too far to use it to limit the period of IS/JSA entitlement for EP purposes. There is a very clear Commissioner’s decision on the general interpretation point: [url]https://hbinfo.org/comdecs/ch_4546_2002.doc[/url].

In summary, D&A Reg 8(3) does not have any impact on an extended payment in my view and you can go ahead and pay it.

[Anonymous]

JSA is a “qualifying benefit” and falls under Reg 7(i) of the Decisions and Appeals Regs. A new award of JSA should make you supersede from the day it was awarded (Reg 8(14)) and no time limit applies to it (because it is treated under a different provision to a change of circumstances).

This should solve your problem…

[robstark]

if someone recives IS, then income exceeds as Incap increases then therapuetic earnings increase to a point where incap is no longer payable doe the clmt retain the right to a run-on or not…. also when the epp is loaded should all income included the therapuetic income be end-dated thus awarding full benefit????

[Mark]

Robert,

You [b:0eee0719f1]can[/b:0eee0719f1] get a extended payment if your Incap increases because of work done above the “permitted work” thresholds (it’s not called therapuetic earnings anymore). But in order to get this you must have been on either Incap, SDA or a combination of the 2 for at least 26 weeks before the Incap/SDA ended. Unfortunately, time spent on IS does not count towards the 26 week qualifying period. So, if (unusually) someone had been on IS for a long time, then went onto Incap only, and then has their Incap ended – they can’t get an extended payment at all unless they has also been getting Incap for 26 weeks. It does sounds as though you have a case where they have been getting Incap for at least 26 weeks and if so they qualify for the extended payment.

Extended payments for people coming off Incap/SDA are not paid at maximum rate – they just get the same amount they previously qualified for for the extended payment period.

[robstark]

thanks Mark – some useful info there!!

[Kevin D]

As an aside…

So long as the 26+ weeks is continuous (& certified), it doesn’t matter if the first 25 weeks is contribution based – all that matters is that when JSA ends, it needs to be [u:15e8337cc4]income-based[/u:15e8337cc4] at that point in time.

Regards

[robstark]

thanks Kevin.

[Author]

Posts