Non-deps scenario

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20135
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Can colleagues tell me what they think should happen in the following examples and from when do the changes afect HB?

    (1) 1 November 2003. Non-dep in receipt of JSA moves in to claimant 65 plus household. Starts work on 25 April 2004.

    (2) 1 November 2003. Non-dep in receipt of JSA moves into claimant 65 plus household. Starts work on 5 May 2004.

    (3) 1 November 2003. Non-dep couple both working move into claimant 65 plus household. Amicable split in relationship 5 May 2004, both continue to reside in property as non-deps.

    #2168
    Derrick
    Participant

    1) if non-dep over 25 Deds would be due to start 3/5/04, however we should use earnings figure not jsa from this date.

    2)Deds as jsa from 3/5/04 then another 26 weeks before amending to earnings deductions

    3)Deds as couple with effect 3/5/04, deds as single people after further 26 weeks.

    That’s my understanding anyway. But I’m prepared to be proved wrong.

    #2169
    Mark
    Participant

    1) Agree with Derrick

    2) Agree with Derrick

    3) 1 deduction (for couple) made only from 3/5/04. From when couple split (and assuming that neither also had a change in income) the 2 new deductions applicable for each member of the couple should be made from 10/5/04 regardless of whether this would lead to a higher or lower overall deduction.

    It has always bugged me that in some cases the rules about 1 non-dep deduction for a couple can sometimes work to the claimant’s disadvantage but in Peter’s scenario I don’t think it matters either way.

    #2170
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Disagree with 2

    If a nondep moves from IS or JSA(IB) to starting work,there is no concession according to the log Q318 on part 3 of the external questions log.

    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/publications/2003/pensioncreditr/log2.pdf

    Jon

    #2171
    Julian Hobson
    Participant

    I disagree jon for two reasons:

    1. because it says claimant stops getting IS in the answer (so i am ignoring it)

    2. because it is an increase in income (well might be if they have more income), I accept that they might be under 25 and now have nil income.

    The policy intention is clear, this is another example of “bad drafting” linking the concession to the change in income or moving in is ludicrous. It should be linked to the fact that a deduction is now applicable or would have increased, in this way all scenarios would be covered and everyone would be happy. 💡

    #2172
    Mark
    Participant

    Quite right Jon – it does say that. But it’s wrong isn’t it?! I agree that the 26 week rule doesn’t apply where dependants become non-dependants and where someone on IS turns 25. But a change from being on IS/JSA(IB) to starting work is a change in income in my book and is covered by SI2003/325 reg 22(2)(b). I suspect the DWP are asking us to draw a distinction between deductions covered by HB Reg 63(8) and those covered by the rest of Reg 63. Even then they could only be right if the non dep whose IS ends and earnings starts is under 25. But I just don’t agree with them.

    #2173
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Q360 in part 4 spells it out more. Still I.S. though.

    I agree about bad drafting.

    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/publications/2003/pensioncreditr/log3.pdf

    Sorry Mark, composed posted and edited this before my browser showed me your posting.

    Peter you started this, what do you think

    #2174
    Mark
    Participant

    Jon – thanks for the reference to Q360. Now I’ve read it I’m even more convinced that the DWP are wrong. Do they seriously want us to believe that people whose hours of work increase don’t increase their earnings too? The 16hr rule in IS/JSA(IB) is a reference to remunerative work just like it is in HB – ie. it is not only the hours that matter – it is that it is paid work. The number of people who will stop getting IS/JSA(IB) because of the remunerative work exclusion but end up with a lower income overall is too miniscule to possibly warrant “going down that road”. I say apply the 26 week rule and be done with it. I know it’s been said before but it’s worth saying again – the DWP can offer guidance (as well they should) but it’s ultimately up to the LA to decide what the law means.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.