Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Hi

We have a pensioner on savings credit only with a AIP set until 2009. There AIF has capital over £16,000. She has now bought a car and capital has decreased about £11,000.

The pension service wont touch her AIF until 2009, do we still have to use there AIF or can we process new claim based on her current circs??

If we have to use current AIF can you provide regs to confirm this??

Thanks

Hannah

[Kevin D]

I’m really hoping someone can come up with a different answer, but having just had a scan read of [b:fdac7f552a]HBR(SPC) 27[/b:fdac7f552a], I don’t see any basis for varying the capital if was over £16,000 at the outset.

new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2/pchbregs06/027_06pc.shtml

It’s unlikely this was the intended effect given the comparative generosity otherwise shown in the 60+ regs.

On the assumption that there isn’t an exception, it may be worth advising the clmt to seek proper advice about the Pension Cred regs to see if there is any leeway at that end of the equation Even allowing for AIPs, it still seems odd that the DWP can refuse to make an amendment. But, I don’t know enough about the mechanics of PC.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Thats the impression I got when I read it! 😥

[Jayne-T]

The following is an extract from the Pension Service website

“Changes to capital during an assessed income period
You do not have to tell us about changes to your capital during the assessed income period.
If your capital changes and you think you could be entitled to more Pension Credit, you can tell us and ask for your Pension Credit to be recalculated. If this happens we will ask you for details of all your (non-state) pension and annuity income and your capital at thatbpoint. If the total is less than the figure we have been using, your Pension Credit will go up. If the total is the same as or more than the figure we have been using, your Pension Credit will stay the same.”

So it looks to me like they can get their Pension Credit re-assessed

[Anonymous]

They can most definitely get their Pension Credit reassessed. Section 8 of the State Pension Credit Act is very clear about this – an element of the claimant’s “retirement provision” (which includes capital) can be recalculated during the AIP if the result will be an increase in their Pension Credit.

This in turn should filter through to you as a revised AIF, or maybe even a GC case.

[david kearney]

bump.

pensioner originally assessed by pension service as having capital slightly exceeding 16k. Capital susequently reduces to below 16k, advised by us to request reviw by ps. Pension service look into it and decide that although cap has decreased, occ pens have increased, and the overall outcome would be pc decreasing, a non-beneficial changes so they will not revise the AIF. So no entitlement to HB/CTB. Has anyone come across this before, any bright ideas to get round it?

[Carol Meredith]

Although pensions service have not revised the AIF, haven’t they now acknowledged that they are taking into account capital of below £16,000, so there is now potential entitlement to HB/CTB?

Carol

[Jayne-T]

I don’t know a way around this. As far as I am aware there is no provision for us to override the capital amount in the circumstances you describe, unless the Pension Service re-assess entitlement to Pension Credit.

[david kearney]

Thanks for the response Carol. Looks like they’ve just done some sort of trial calculation and on that basis decided overall change non-advantageous so no revision. Would you award in this scenario? And so would you amend the AIF to show the actual amount of capital?. Its either that or lean on the PS liason officer to get the AIF changed. Havent annoyed her for a while so might get somewhere

[Anonymous]

David
As has been said above I don’t think you can amend the AIF in the circumstances you outline, as I cannot see it being one of the situations you can amend the AIF. The DWP have obviously taken a very narrow view of better off (you can see their point), but if you point out the wider implications they may be persuaded to change their mind.
[i:a6857ed0d5]How’s your leaning? Maybe the only option you have![/i:a6857ed0d5] 8)

[david kearney]

Thanks all. I’ll let you know how effective my leaning skills are.

[david kearney]

leaning to no avail it would appear.

The extremely helpful liaison officer at the pension centre has been doing her best but has now had an outright no from their legal dept. Probably shouldn’t but their reply is part quoted below. Has anyone got any bright ideas other than getting the cust to withdraw and re-claim PC

“[i:ce1364c35d]Can you advise if we are permitted to action a non-beneficial change? The only guidance I can find in the PCPG states that a non-beneficial change must not be actioned. It does not state that we should give any consideration to the payability of Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit when considering non-beneficial changes. Can the customer insist that we action a non-beneficial change? If so, do any special steps need to be taken?”

Section 7(3) of the SPC Act fixes the claimant’s retirement provision for the duration of the AIP subject to deemed increases or decreases in accordance with the regulations (see DMG83061). The assessed income is the assessed amount at the time of the “relevant decision”, i.e. the time that the S of S determines the claimant’s income at the start of the AIP (sections 6(1) and (3) of the SPC Act). However, s8 of the Act allows the DM to make fresh determinations for the purpose of supersession if the outcome will be an increase in the SPC to which the claimant is entitled.

Where a change is not beneficial (except for the deemed increases) there is no provision for supersession. Although s.8 allows supersession that is only in the case of beneficial changes. A beneficial change is one which increases the rate of SPC payable (s.8(1)(b)), not one which increases the rate of other benefits such as HB or CTB. There are no legal means by which a DM can satisfy the claimant’s request for a supersession during the AIP if the outcome would be to reduce the SPC in payment.

I have been in touch with Policy about this and their advice is that the claimant needs to contact the LA and explain that his capital has reduced. HB can be awarded because the claimant will no longer be excluded on capital grounds. The LA can use the assessed income figure from the Pension Service to determine the claimant’s income for HB/CTB purposes. The outcome should be that SPC remains in payment at the same rate as before but that the claimant is no longer excluded from HB on capital grounds.[/i:ce1364c35d] “

[Author]

Posts