Non-Dep change in Status

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #20247

    I’m hoping someone can help me. It regards non-dep’s when they change from students to working or IS/JSA to Working. As this is a change of status the non dep deduction should be applied immediatly and not deffered for 26 weeks when the claimant is in receipt of Savings Credit. This is being questioned and i’m having trouble finding the regulation to back this up. can anyone point me in the right direction.



    Let’s take this in parts:

    1) The 26 week rule applies to every claim where the claimant or partner is aged 65 or over – not just people who get SC.

    2) The wording of the regulations says that the 26 week rule applies when “the income of a non-dependant increased…” (HB Reg 68(9) as it applies to pensioners by virtue of SI2003/325 Reg 22). But an increase in deductions caused by students starting work is not because they have had an increase in income. It is because they are no longer a student. In other words, the increased deduction (from nil to something) has nothing to do with a change in their income. In fact , their income may even be the same or less than before but the increased deduction will still apply.

    3) Pretty much the same thing applies to people coming of IS/JSA(IB) and into work. On the face of it, this is an increase in income. But again, what matters is why the deduction increased. In essence, the increased deduction applies not because of the increased income but because of the end of IS/JSA(IB) itself (and hence HB Reg 63(8) or 63(1)(b) no longer applies).

    4) These justifications for why the 26 week rule works in this way are actually pretty daft. If I remember rightly I read somewhere recently that the DWP have acknowledged that the rule should apply in all cases of increased deductions and that they are planning a change in the law to this effect.


    I should also add that if you want to trawl your way through the regs on this one you will need to be mindful of the changes to SI2003/325 made by SI2003/2275. These amending regs don’t affect who the rules apply to but they do contain the revised version of the 26 week rule that supersedes all that anniversary date nonsense that we had first time around.


    I have copied below the appropriate reg (HB reg 68(9)(b)(ii)) which stipulates which type of increase in non-dep charges warrant a deferral:

    (ii) the income of a non-dependant increased so that the amount of the deduction which falls to be made under regulation 63 increased.

    I would agree with Mark if the above only made reference to regulation 63 (2) – this is the part that breaks down the different levels of income and their appropriate non-dep deduction.

    However, it makes reference to reg 63 in its entirity. Whilst the change in status also changes the non-dep deduction, you cannot divorce that from the underlying reason for the change which is an income increase (and, no, I’m not going to entertain the miniscule minoroty where this may not be true – I’d give you a deferral as well!!). I’m sure this is the intention of the regs (although a rewrite would be nice as confirmation).

    I’d love to see a TAS Chairs’ interpretation.


    So taking an example of a claim iI am stuck on, a non dep of 17 is working full time, becomes 18, from when to apply the deduction ?


    Well, I’m sticking with my first answer! Sean’s one is more clear cut – you apply the deduction immediately (no deferral). This is because the other circumstance where the defferal applies (i.e. a new non-dependant) is only where “a non-dependant took up residence in the claimant’s dwelling” (HB Reg 68(9)(b)(i)). But this non-dep was already there.


    Im bringing up an old subject but this is because I have got totally lost on change of status / income.

    Can someone say if these are change in status or change in income

    Non dep over 25 on IS / JSA IB to full time work
    I say change in status applies immediately

    Non dep – on JSA (CB) / Incapacity Benefit to full time work
    I guess change in income – deferred.


    I thought I’d got this cracked but looking at the regs I’m not so sure.

    Reg 63 (HBR87) states that the deduction shall be £47.75 for someone in remunerative work (Reg63(1)) but this is is subject to Reg 63(2) which sets out the income bands.

    Reg 63 (1)(b) states that the deduction for someone not in remunerative work is £7.40

    The current line is that a change in status (JSA(IB) into work) does not necessarily mean a change in income so to me anyone not in remunerative work, starting remunerative work is a change in status and the NDD would start immediately.

    In effect, anyone changing ND deduction bands (subject to 63(1)(a) and 63(2) would have their increase deferred but anyone moving from a deduction under 63(1)(b) to 63(1)(a) or 63(2) applies immediately.

    It would have been easier if they had written the Pension Regulation 68(9) to read “the income of a non-dependant [i:c0772ca867]in remunerative work[/i:c0772ca867] increased….

    Trouble is, I think that is what they mean but it is not what they say.

    In summary Sean, I think you would apply both revised NDDs immediately.

    Willing to be shot down if wrong 😯


    Reg. 68(9)(b)(ii) – the relevant provision here – simply says that the deferral provision [Reg. 68(10) and (11)] applies where “the income of a non-dependant increased so that the amount of the deduction which falls to be made under Regulation 63 increased.”

    I can’t see any reason why a “change of status” comes into it. If you move from IS/JSA into work, your income changes so that you are no longer protected by Reg. 63(8), and a fixed rate of deduction applies in accordance with Reg. 63(1) and (2). Quite clearly, the amount of deduction has increased from nil to whatever is dictated by the income bands.

    Exactly the same principle aplies to non-deps. coming off Incapacity Benefit to start work – it’s a change in income which leads to a higher rate of deduction.

    If you’re not convinced there’s a clear cut answer (because the Regs are woolly) is there any reason why you shouldn’t err on the side of the claimant?

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