Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Transitional Element for Tax Credit-only claimants
An interesting dilemma for people coming up with calculators - should the calculator reflect the law or the practice?
(presumably DWP would say that the practice reflects the law, others might disagree)
Thanks daphne. Disappointing but expected few answers.
Did you manage to ask if they are including £173 tarrif income in indicative uc if there is over £16k savings?
An interesting dilemma for people coming up with calculators - should the calculator reflect the law or the practice?
(presumably DWP would say that the practice reflects the law, others might disagree)
Many agencies are simply saying that you cannot advise predictively at all in these circumstances.
@Elliot
Presumably, now that DWP have ‘clarified’ their position, those organisations will face a similar dilemma. Unless they maintain their current position throughout the whole of the managed migration process? Which would presumably not be welcomed by DWP?
Thanks daphne. Disappointing but expected few answers.
As I understand it, this is not at all disappointing - especially not for renters. The fewer elements included in the indicative UC, the greater the transitional element, which then floats on top of all the other things they never had before when the real life UC calculation is done at the end of the month.
that is true - not including the housing element for renters not on HB. does usually considerably increase the Transitional element. just the ongoing worry though that DWP (despite their affirmations) will try and claw back the overpayment in years to come
Thanks daphne. Disappointing but expected few answers.
As I understand it, this is not at all disappointing - especially not for renters. The fewer elements included in the indicative UC, the greater the transitional element, which then floats on top of all the other things they never had before when the real life UC calculation is done at the end of the month.
I agree and was slightly reassured by their insistence that they would not be changing their position on this - I think the fear has always been what if they backtrack and decide there’s been an overpayment which is a question that had been sent in advance but didn’t get answered and, although we were asking questions as fast as we could, we didn’t get a chance to ask again today.
They said they would still be sending us answers to all the questions we have sent in but they’ve had a lot of them for some considerable time now…
Thanks daphne. Disappointing but expected few answers.
Did you manage to ask if they are including £173 tarrif income in indicative uc if there is over £16k savings?
i did send this question in advance but wasn’t answered in presentation and didn’t get time to ask again today - as above they are supposed to be answering everything we sent in…
My first thoughts:
1. Are they saying that it was never their practice to take the unearned income figure from tax credits? If so, why did (does?) their TP calculator ask for the other income figure from tax credits???
2. They’re saying that if the claimant is actually on Carer’s Allowance, then that will be taken into account in the indicative UC amount, which is not what their original guidance, and response to Rachel, suggested.
1. They suggested that they hadn’t changed anything about the calculation so I think that is was they’re saying. I guess it’s possible they were considering it early on in designing the process and never took it off the form.
2. On Carer’s Allowance, they didn’t seem overly prepared for the question (even though it was sent ahead!) and I’m not 100% sure if they meant that the Carer Element would be included if there was Carer’s Allowance. I don’t remember them explicitly saying that - but happy to be corrected by anyone else who was there! It would make sense that it is but as you said given the guidance, I’m not sure that it is. It’s a point that they said they’d clarify so hopefully we’ll get a definitive answer soon.
On them changing their mind in the future - they seemed pretty determined that what they were doing was correct and in line with the Regs (they said they’d checked with lawyers I think). I’d be very surprised if they went back on that in the future (although anything is possible!)
I’m beginning to doubt myself now Rachel! I think they said that because they could take info from CIS about carer’s allowance and so this allowed it to be included in the indicative UC - but I also stand to be corrected if wrong - I’ll send up an email anyway - no harm in keeping at them…
They definitely said it was taken as income from CIS but not sure if they also meant that would trigger the addition of the Carer Element- it was hard to keep track of everything!
Isn’t their approach to Reg 54 inconsistent? For example, for a tax credit only claimant, they are saying they will take into account their circumstances in terms of capital but they won’t take account that they are a carer. Neither of which affect or are included in the tax credit award?
Isn’t their approach to Reg 54 inconsistent? For example, for a tax credit only claimant, they are saying they will take into account their circumstances in terms of capital but they won’t take account that they are a carer. Neither of which affect or are included in the tax credit award?
Income from capital is used in tax credits; wouldn’t that justify consideration?
But they don’t have information about how much the capital is - so they have to use this from claim form
but they will know that income from it, if any, has been used in the Tax Credit calc. In that sense capital has affected TC even if they don’t know the figure.