carers and universal credit

regulation 85-88 of the universal credit regulations

regulation 85 defines ‘relevant carer’ and includes someone caring for a person with physical or mental impairment.

regulation 88 ‘expected hours’ specifies that relevant carers, where the secretary of state is satisfied that there is a reasonble prospect of finding work, can work the number of hours the S of S considers compatible with those caring responsibilities. (ie are still expected to loo for work at some level)

This would seem just another example of things getting worse (from the current position of carers on income support who are not expected to look for work at all) if it wasn’t for the anomaly of 89 1(b) which specifies that carers of severely disabled people (35 hours a week) but who do not meet the conditions for carers allowance do not have to comply with work search or work availability where the SoS decides it is unreasonable to expect them to comply.

Have I missed the place where this can also apply to those who do claim Carers Allowance - apart from the catch all discretion at regulation 16. Otherwise it reads as if carer who can’t claim carers allowance has to meet less work search conditions than those who do claim C.A

Does anyone read it differently or is there another bit I should look at?

Nel Coles

I think you need to read this in conjunction with s19 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.  It says that the Sec of State cannot impose any work-related conditions on someone who “has regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person”.  The definitions in s40 leave the interpretation of that phrase to Regulations.

UC Reg 2 (interpretation) in turn signposts you to Reg 30 and it defines a carer pretty much as now - someone who satisfies conditions for Carers Allowance or would do if earning less.  These people are exempt from all work-related activity directly under s19 and there is no need for the Regs to repeat any reference to them.  In the same way, there is no need for the Regs to say that people in the UC equivalent of the ESA WRA group are subject to “work preparation”: it’s already there in s21.

Reg 89(1)(b) seems to be there in case someone slips through the net of s19 on some kind of technicality although I am struggling to think of one.  I think Reg 85 is more about the who than the what - couples nominating who is looking after the kids and who is signing on

HB Anorak - 26 March 2013 05:21 PM

Reg 89(1)(b) seems to be there in case someone slips through the net of s19 on some kind of technicality although I am struggling to think of one.

I have seen two examples given somewhere (but my brain isn’t working this afternoon). Firstly someone who cares for 35 hours a week, but for more than one disabled person (so can’t get carer’s allowance - this is clear from the wording of Reg 89). Secondly, where someone else already gets carer’s allowance or the carer element for looking after a disabled person, but the claimant also spends 35 hours caring for the same person. In the second situation I think that DWP are right that our claimant doesn’t have ‘regular and substantial caring responsibilities’ as defined, even if they provide just as much care.

All of the DWP info on the subject is very reassuring that no-one caring for 35 hours will ever have any work-related requirements, but the actual wording of Reg 89(1)(b) leaves this as a discretionary decision, so it will be interesting to see how it works in practice.

thank you both - this is my second attempt to reply have been having trouble with the ‘post reply’ button. Yes the welfare reform act clarifies the issue of work conditions, thank you.

One outstanding issue for me from all of this is what is meant (or intended by) ‘satisfy the conditions for entitlement to carers allowance or would do so but for the fact that their earnings have exceeded the limit prescribed for the purposes of that allowance’ - the definition of regularly and substantially caring given at regulation 30 of the universal credit regs.

It is made clear in reg 30 (2) that the above definition applies even if carers allowance is not claimed and the definition itself makes clear that a person will be treated as regularly and substantially caring if the only reason they do not satisfy the conditions for entitlement is earnings above the threshold for gainful employment.

My feeling is that a person can ‘satisfy the conditions of entitlement’ even if they cannot be entitled because someone else is claiming - my worry however, is that one of the conditions of entitlement might be that no one else is claiming -

Section 70 (7) of the contributions and benefits act 1992 says ‘no person shall be entitled .....where, apart from this subsection, two or more persons would be entitled for the same day to such an allowance in respect of the same severely disabled person , one of them only shall be entitled…’.

Has anyone got an opinion on this? I know it sounds like semantics but it will be the difference between several people being able to be regularly and substantially caring (which is often the case) and treated as such for UC meaning no work related conditions attached and only one being able to do so.

I am not sure I can give you a definitive answer in fact I will just add one more element of uncertainty.  The conditions of entitlement for any benefit include making a claim in accordance with s1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.  So where the UC Regs talk about someone satisfying the conditions for carers allowance, do they include the requirement that the person has claimed it or do they just mean the substantive caring conditions that are peculiar to CA alone?  I don’t know.

Thank you. They have put in 30 (2) stating that 30 (1) will apply whether it is claimed or not so that bit at least seems to be covered…? It does seem that the only people that would need regulation 89 are those caring for a severel disabled person 35 hrs a week who ‘do not satisfy the conditions of entitlement’ given that regulatoon 30 already covers those who only do not meet them due to being gainfully employed and also those who ‘satisfy the conditions for entitlement’ but have not claimed that really only leaves those where either they are already claiming or where someone else es claiming for the same person - it would seem from that they they will not treat someone who is caring for a severely disabled person for 35 hours a week as regularly and substantially caring under regulation 30 if soemone else is already claiming for the same person - but they can use regulation 89 which as Jon says is discretionary.