Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

I have a case where a claimant has a recognisable cycle of work and hours worked per week is over 16 hours per week. She also qualifies for Child Care Disregard.

However, due to a downturn in her employer’s business, the working hours reduced to less than 16 hours per week for a period of 5 weeks and then returned to over 16 hours per week.

LA decided that the reduction in hours in the period of 5 weeks was a relevant change in circumstances and recalculated HB/CTB entitlement. This meant that claimant lost the Child Care Disregrad for the period.

Claimant has appealed the decision that she works less than 16 hours per week. I am minded to agree her appeal because on average of the piece she does work over 16 hours per week.

Any opinions ?

[Kevin D]

In my opinion, your decision was correct.

There was a clear change in circs – the reduction in hours was not part of the previously recognised cycle.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Again, these are always arguable.

Take a long average of someone who worked many hours for many years/months then you could conclude that on average the hours remained above the 16; but I wouldn’t want to defend it or propose it (mere blip!).

I see no great issue with the decision that was made, there was an identifiable change in circs which led to a change in benefits.

[Author]

Posts