Modifying the AIF

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #20055

    Has anybody come up with a simple definitive list of incomes and disregards which differ in HB/CTB calculations to Pension Credit calculations, and would mean that we would have to modify the AIF?



    Not suprised that you haven’t had a reply. I’ve been trying to work this one out and the thing that puzzles me is WTC!

    Pension Credit REGS say that WTC is not a qualifying income – (SI No. 1792 reg9)

    Reg 23 (part 2) of HB/CTB(state Pension Credit)Regs 2003 – does not show WTC as an income which we should use to modify the AIF.

    However Reg 23 has the catch all that we should modify the AIF in respect of any income of the partner ‘not taken into account in determining the …..state pension credit’ .

    However Hb/CTB regs say that (part 2 24&25) where claimant receives neither guarantee credit nor savings credit then WTC should be taken into account in calculating HB/CTB.

    Does this mean that if you claim Savings credit then WTC is not taken into account neither in calculating the Savings credit nor in amending the AIF and that if you are unsuccesful in getting savings credit then we will use the WTC in the HB/CTB calc?

    Art the same time the Pension Reg 5 says that income and capital of partner should be treated as the income and capital of the claimant.

    Confused or what? – on top of all that I can’t remember where I hid the poison!


    I think it works like this:

    [*:dd28e50635]WTC counts as income for GC purposes
    [*:dd28e50635]But WTC is not “qualifying” income for SC, because it’s essentially a pre-retirement income stream and not something you have saved for. This is to the claimant’s disadvantage, because at this stage of the calculation the more income you have above the SC threshold, the better
    [*:dd28e50635]If total income (including WTC) exceeds the GC threshold, SC is tapered by 40% of the excess, so WTC can reduce SC for those who don’t receive GC
    [*:dd28e50635]WTC should, therefore, be included in the AIF: no need to modify. Also, if the claimant is a pensioner who gets no PC at all, WTC would still be counted as income

    I think that’s how it will work, but isn’t it difficult trying to cross-reference amendments that aren’t yet consolidated into the main Regs?


    Thanks for your replies.
    I assumed people were thinking that I was a lazy so and so and should work it out for myself!

    For savings credit only cases I was hoping that for the non-modified cases (which should be the vast majority) the only income we would need to input into the system would the AIF and the Savings Credit itself.

    I am now hearing rumours that in the future for either Stat. or HBMS purposes we may need to extract all the income used in the calculation including the breakdown of the AIF.

    Has anybody heard anything similar?

    (Wouldn’t it have been easier if the HB/CTB income and disregards had been amended to mirror the Pension Credit income and disregards or vice versa. This way in all cases all we would need to assess with would be an AIF and the savings credit. Now that would be simplification!)

    Julian Hobson

    According to the recent additions to the external questions log on the DWP website the situation is complicated.

    the GC only and GC and SC cases notified on the august extract will be straight forward as no AIF

    However the SC only cases notified will not have AIF breakdowns, the answer from DWP is that we will have to ask PS for the breakdown and that the SLA says a 48 hour turnaround, and that we should liaise with PS about how we are going to handle this !!!!

    The good news is that the ETDs received before October 6th should have the AIF breakdown although as I said in my earlier post the examples in the handbook don’t confirm this.

    I can feel a debacle coming on !


    I am glad I am not the only one suffering with all this. I am trying to prepare an IT specification for our in-house IT people to get our system ready for Pension Credits and am therefore very concerned about this business about modifying the AIF.
    I would repeat the question: “Why on earth don’t the disregards in both schemes mirror each other?”.
    I would appreciate it if anyone could confirm the following as I am slowly going brain dead looking at the SIs, etc …
    1. We operate a local scheme whereby we disregard War Disability Pensions – I assume that we can continue to do this and therefore disregard the remaining AIF in relation to WDP (after the PS have taken off £10)?
    2. There is no disregard in PCs for maintenance payments.
    3. If a pensioner 65+ is working or their partner is working, will the PS tell us either via RAT or ETD how many hours they work? (It doesn’t appear so from the handbook) We will need this in order to take a child care disregard or the 30+ hrs a week additional earnings disregard? (I appreciate it will only happen in a small number of cases but I still need to make sure we cover it). Is it simply a case of then contacting the PS to get more info?
    Any help with this would be gratefully received.


    Yes – you can continue to disregard the balance of the war pension as you do now – I have heard that the DWP are considering an amendment to have a total disregard for the war pensions.

    There doesn’t apear to be any disregard for maintenance payments in PC however my understanding is that payments for children are not taken into account nor any other income of children.

    Not sure about your last point but think you are correct in assuming that we will have to contact the PA.

    On another subject I hear that simplification of the anniversary date is also being considered.



    We also use an in-house system at Calderdale.

    This is the way we have approached the problem of the AIF.

    New income field for the AIF.
    New income field for the Savings Credit.

    We currently have around 2800 cases of over 65’s not on MIG, and I’m estimating only about 200 of these will need modifying.

    If the case does not need modifying we will only enter the AIF and the Savings Credit.

    If the case does need modifying we will enter the Savings credit then the gross income amounts advised to us by the Pension Service in their ususal respective income fields, and apply the usual HB/CTB disregards.

    We should then be able to differentiate between modified and unmodified for notification purposes to advise the correct appeal procedures.
    Savings credit + AIF = non modified
    Savings credit only = modified.

    We are also developing a new screen for the non modified cases which will contain only the AIF and Savings credit fields. Once we are advised of uprated figures we will enter the figures into the new screen. These figures will be dormant until our own uprating when they will be pulled across into the new year calculation.

    For modified cases we will wait until our uprating has taken place and then input the new figures through the normal assessment screens.

    With the number of modified cases being so small it seemed a better idea to try and devise something simple for assessment staff for the non-modifieds and worry about the modifieds separately.

    PS You can still operate your local scheme for War widows and War disability pensions.
    Not sure if they will advise the number of hours worked – we may have to contact the PS, but I think we only have about ten cases where they are working.


    Have a look at the latest list of answers to questions on DWP website – aimed at software houses. Just 133 pages long and getting longer by the day.

    Don’t know what the fuss is about …

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.