Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
May I check this scenario is not UC?
Couple – one now on state pension (age 66) the other ten years younger
Both were on CESA until the older person went on to SRP
The older partner was the claimant for IRESA up to pension age
Reached pension age Dec 2020 - so after May 2019 but before end of SDP Gateway so can’t claim PC but were protected .from being pushed on to UC at the time.
Younger person remains on CESA, Support Group
Both have enhanced rate PIP Daily Living
Both have underlying CA
Housing Benefit in payment including 2x carer premium, one SDP, couple rate of HB is ‘pension age pre April 2021’
They appear to have no other means tested support at the moment
Figures indicate IRESA is payable if younger claimant is eligible to claim it
But….can they?
I’d argue IRESA claim is not a new claim but a change to/continuation of the CESA claim and so it isn’t a UC matter.
Any thoughts? Mine are now too tangled to be of any use.
Couple – one now on state pension (age 66) the other ten years younger
Both were on CESA until the older person went on to SRP
The older partner was the claimant for IRESA up to pension age
Reached pension age Dec 2020 - so after May 2019 but before end of SDP Gateway so can’t claim PC but were protected .from being pushed on to UC at the time.
Younger person remains on CESA, Support Group
Both have enhanced rate PIP Daily Living
Both have underlying CA
Housing Benefit in payment including 2x carer premium, one SDP, couple rate of HB is ‘pension age pre April 2021’
They appear to have no other means tested support at the moment
Figures indicate IRESA is payable if younger claimant is eligible to claim it
But….can they?
I’d argue IRESA claim is not a new claim but a change to/continuation of the CESA claim and so it isn’t a UC matter.
Any thoughts? Mine are now too tangled to be of any use.
See CPAG 2021/22 Chapter 2 page 26 top third of it confirming your nascent argument!!!!!!!!
You might well have a case for arrears to be paid here as well. In a case like that, and assuming pension income still leaves some means-tested entitlement, the older partner should have been treated as working age for the purpose of satisfying the ESA basic eligibility conditions and should have remained on ESA(ir) after reaching pension age. There should also have been a pensioner premium, because the fiction of treating them as working age falls away once it has done its job of keeping them on ESA. If that didn’t happen, the decision ending ESA(ir) should be amenable to revision on the official error ground.
See Article 8 of the No 31 Order.
Article 8 also says that they continue to be assessed in that way until their entitlement ends naturally for any reason, so there shouldn’t be any need to do a switcheroo into the younger partner’s name.
In short, remedy here is to reinstate ESA(ir) with no gap and still in the name of the original claimant.
You might well have a case for arrears to be paid here as well. In a case like that, and assuming pension income still leaves some means-tested entitlement, the older partner should have been treated as working age for the purpose of satisfying the ESA basic eligibility conditions and should have remained on ESA(ir) after reaching pension age. There should also have been a pensioner premium, because the fiction of treating them as working age falls away once it has done its job of keeping them on ESA. If that didn’t happen, the decision ending ESA(ir) should be amenable to revision on the official error ground.
See Article 8 of the No 31 Order.
Article 8 also says that they continue to be assessed in that way until their entitlement ends naturally for any reason, so there shouldn’t be any need to do a switcheroo into the younger partner’s name.
In short, remedy here is to reinstate ESA(ir) with no gap and still in the name of the original claimant.
Many, many thanks.