Miscalculation of TP Erosion?

Just wondering if anyone else has seen this. We’ve had a client in who had a transitional amount of SDP in their UC award. They are claiming UC, NS-ESA, and PIP (still SDL). Their transitional protection was removed in their most recent assessment period (first after benefit uprating took effect). We’ve queried this on the journal and been told that it’s because their increases in the amount of UC, ESA and PIP that they are getting are more than the transitional protection was therefore it ends as she’s no longer worse off under UC.

This appears to be balderdash because as far as I can see the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 say that it’s decreased (from the second assessment period which she’s way past) by any “relevant increases” (Reg 55(2)(b)) which is defined as being an increase in the maximum amounts of those things defined under section 9 to 12 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (basically standard allowance, housing costs, child elements, LCW/LCWRA elements). No mention of PIP and ESA.

I reckon that her transitional protection should have gone down to around £65pm rather than having been reduced to nil.

Am I right and if so has anyone else seen this? I’m now worried that this decision maker will have made the same mistake for a lot of other people!

Sorry, DWP are saying an increase to the rate of PIP erodes transitional protection paid within a Universal Credit award? PIP isn’t even taken into account as an income…..

They are finding new ways to make things up and this is very worrying because a lot of people will just accept this kind of nonsense.

CHAC Adviser - 02 July 2024 02:56 PM

Just wondering if anyone else has seen this. We’ve had a client in who had a transitional amount of SDP in their UC award. They are claiming UC, NS-ESA, and PIP (still SDL). Their transitional protection was removed in their most recent assessment period (first after benefit uprating took effect). We’ve queried this on the journal and been told that it’s because their increases in the amount of UC, ESA and PIP that they are getting are more than the transitional protection was therefore it ends as she’s no longer worse off under UC.

This appears to be balderdash because as far as I can see the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 say that it’s decreased (from the second assessment period which she’s way past) by any “relevant increases” (Reg 55(2)(b)) which is defined as being an increase in the maximum amounts of those things defined under section 9 to 12 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (basically standard allowance, housing costs, child elements, LCW/LCWRA elements). No mention of PIP and ESA.

I reckon that her transitional protection should have gone down to around £65pm rather than having been reduced to nil.

Am I right and if so has anyone else seen this? I’m now worried that this decision maker will have made the same mistake for a lot of other people!

As Paul and you both say, it’s only the increase in the UC elements that can erode the transitional element. If you are able to email me the client’s details (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address))  I will raise it via the stakeholder forum - very worrying as you say

Edit - would be great to see exactly what the journal message said too :)

Have you actually compared the new statement with the previous one to see what has changed?

AFAIK, the erosion is carried out by the computer automatically, so whatever explanation they’ve given on the journal, I’d be surprised if it was really due to PIP or ESA…