Terms & Conditions

[simondoyle]

Clarification required please ….
HB claimant is under 60. Partner is over 65, gets a Savings Credit and PS provide us with an AIF. Is the claim treated as a pensioner claim (i.e. no benefit period to be set) or a working age claim?

[simondoyle]

Apologies as I meant to also ask this: …
In the above scenario, the partner has £10,000 in capital. HB regs say that capital belonging to the partner is deemed to belong to the claimant, therefore, as the claimant is not of pensionable age, the £1 for every £250 over £3000 rule will apply. Is this right? If the partner claimed a savings credit from the PS, they will assume income from capital on the basis of £1 for every £500 over £6,000?
What would we do for HB?

[Anonymous]

Linking into Simon’s question – can I just clarify the relationship between the AIP and the AIF?
Our bible the Pension Credit Handbook suggests that the AIP cannot be set where one of the couple is under 60 (SEE part 110, 111). How does this square itself with the AIF which is surely linked to the AIP? Or are the existance of the two not necessarily linked? Questions eh?
Apologies to temporarily hijack this trail – pleae feel free to comment on this briefly before moving onto 8) Simon’s questions.
Regards

[Anonymous]

I seem to be going round in circles, trying to decide whether the new rules apply where the hb claimant is the non pensioner and the partner is.
Reg 2(1) of SI 325 states ‘person’ and the exception at 2(2) states claimant or partner on IS/JSA(IB). Why couldnt they both say claimant or both say person.
In the question and answer log Q94 states they are working age and you may advise them which should be claimant, Q113 states new regs, Q125 confirms new regs and Q136 states working age. I think these answers are confused also as some are referring to the abolition of benefit periods aswell as the new HB PC regs.
I am probably missing something obvious but I am not confident in answering the question whether the new regs apply to a claimant under 60 and partner over., not on IS.
All that being said, in answer to simondoyle I would say that you are required to use the calculation of the AIF in the Hb claim.Reg 23 of SI 325. The figure will have been assessed using the PS assumed income from capital. Since we just use their figures our capital rules do not come into it.
I hope someone out there replies and confirms whether the new regs apply or not and points me in the right direction. I also consider that the AIP and the AIF are two seperate things. The PC regs state that an AIF can be adjusted during the existence of the AIP. However, they are also linked in that if a persons circumstances(retirement provision) is not likely to change an AIp will be set for 5 years.

Anyway, I obviously do not know what I am talking about, role on amendment 2 to the handbook which will give a detailed, completely understandable version of the new regs. 😕

[simondoyle]

Can I throw a spanner in the works with regards to joannee’s posting and, in particular, her wise words on the issue of capital where the clmt <60 and partner 65+ on SC with PS providing an AIF. I agree that we should use the AIF.
But what if the partner does not get a SC (he doesn’t qualify) or in cases where the partner is aged 60-64? Is it then a case of existing rules apply, in which case we would calculate tariff income from capital as £1 for every £250 over £6,000?
What I’m trying to get at it this:
Clmt under 60 (existing £1 for every £250 over £3,000 rule applies)
Clmt under 60, partner over 60 (existing £1 for every £250 over £6,000 rule applies (existing HB reg 45 (1ZA))
Clmt 60+ (new HB/CTB SPC rules apply, i.e. £1 for every £500 over £6,000).
We certainly do need to know if the new HB/CTB SPC regs apply when the partner is over 60. New Reg 2(1) states ‘person’ but ‘person’ is not defined in the regs.

[Anonymous]

All I have to say is ‘Where are the Regulation truffle pigs when you need them?’
Hint, nudge 😉

[Anonymous]

I have queried this with DWP and they have confirmed the following:

If the claimant is under 60 and the partner is over 60 and neither are in receipt of IS or JSA(IB) the claim will be assessed under the HB/CTB(SPC) Regs.

Christine also confirmed that she would be amending the answers to questions 94 and 136 on the external log to reflect this.

[Mark]

Without a great deal of confidence this is the way I read it:

The HB/CTB regs as they apply to pensioners apply to all HB/CTB claims where the claimant or partner is 60 or over regardless of which is the claimant and which is the partner. It only matters that one of them is 60 for the new provisions to apply in their entirety (benefit periods, income calculations et al). The only exceptions to this is where (as discussed in a previous thread) one of the couple gets IS or JSA(IB) in which case that will be a claim under the existing provisions (Regs 2(2) and 12(2) of SI 2003/325).

My rationale for this is as follows:

1) Reg 2(1) and 12(1) of SI2003/325 and Reg 2(1) of SI2003/1338 all say that the regs apply in the case of [b:e731a74d3f]any[/b:e731a74d3f] person who has reached the qualifying age for state pension credit. This age is further defined in all these regs as 60 for everyone (although becasue of the increase in the state retirement age this will change to 65 from the year 2020. Zager and Evans would be proud.

2) New Regs 21 and 13 as inserted into the HB/CTB regs by SI2003/325 say that all references in the new income/capital regulations to “claimant” also means “partner”.

3) The regs don’t make sense unless you read it all this way!

I sincerely hope that this is correct but I am unlikely to put up much of a fight if someone wants to put me straight. I am hardy inspired with confidence by the fact that the DWP guidance appears to contradict my view.

Isn’t it insane that with 2 months to go questions like this are still so hard to work out?

[Mark]

I’m already thinking that what I have said about benefit periods is probably wrong!

[Mark]

Well – since no-one has challenged my interpretation does this mean that:

a) I am so wrong that everyone is too kind to say so.

b) You thought I was joking.

c) No-one understands this stuff anyway.

d) All of the above.

e) You all agree with me!

[Anonymous]

That’s as good a job of analysis as anyone could do with such vague drafting in the Regs Mark, so I see no reason not to agree with you.

There is another unclear point that I am not sure about as well. The amending Regs that apply to any “person” over 60 include a couple of tweaks to non-dependant deductions. If the non-dep is on Pension Credit (either component), the scale of remunerative work deductions doesn’t apply: you only slap on the lowest deduction for a working non-dep who gets Pension Credit. But what I am not sure about is this: do these changes only apply if the “person” over 60 is the claimant (i.e. a pensioner claimant with a pensioner non-dep), or is it sufficient for the “person” over 60 to be the non-dep (i.e. a claimant of any age with a pensioner non-dep)?

Did someone already thrash this out on another thread? Sorry if I’m reinventing the wheel.

[Anonymous]

It would appear that the amended non dep deductions apply to all claimants regardless to their age, since Reg 11 of the HB/CTB PC regs amends reg 63 to state that the lower rate of £7.40 applies where the non dep works and receives PC.
I ‘thought’ the amended regs only applied to those people, ie claimants or partners of pensionable age.

[Mark]

Firstly, I am now pretty convinced that my earlier thoughts in this thread were correct – (not the later doubt though!).

Secondly, I think that Peter raises a valid point and I wonder whether there is a drafting error in the regs. If the intention of the revised non-dep deduction figures for PC recipients was to apply this in relation to all non-dep PC recipients (regardless of the age of the claimant/partner) then it doesn’t seem that the regs actually do this.

Regs 2(1) and 12(1) of SI2003/325 demonstrates that the regs apply to “any person” who is a pensioner but Regs 2(2) and 12(2) immediately excludes the new regs from applying to IS/JSA(IB) recipients.

The way I see it, therefore, the special Non Dep deduction rate for PC recipients may only apply if the claimant or partner is also a pensioner – but definitely doesn’t apply if the claimant or partner gets IS/JSA(IB).

Unless anyone convinces me here that I have missed something then I’m taking this to the Adelphi next week. Is there some other SI that I have missed or that is being prepared right now?

[Author]

Posts