UC - claimant commitment & relevant deductions for paid work

A client has been self-employed for many years, but UC agreed (after an appeal) he is not gainfully self-employed so the MIF does not apply. He is in the all-work related requirements group, which is not an issue.

His claimant commitment says, “I’ll spend 35 hours a week looking and preparing for work”. When he asked his work coach if relevant deductions will be made from the 35 hours, he was told no because he is not in gainful self employment and to stop the self-employed work. Previous work coaches did make relevant deductions, but not this one.

My understanding of UC Regs, Regs 95 is that relevant deductions can be made where the claimant has a carried out paid work. Paid work is not defined and therefore includes self-employed earnings irrespective of it being from gainful self-employment. There are a few examples in the ADM.

I agree he needs to look for better paid work or increase his earnings etc. He has been offered another job for 10 hours a week which will fit in with his current s/e work. The work coach could not explain what this would mean to the “35 hours looking and preparing for week” in his commitment.

It seems a nonsense to stop the current s/e work simply to comply with the 35 hours requirement to look for/prepare for work. No one gains except the work coach ticking a box and it makes sanctions more likely despite the principle whatever is in the commitment is meant ot be reaosnable and achievable..

My question is not whether he should look for more work, better paid work or full-time work, but whether the commitment should recognise the time he already spends working as looking for/preparing for work as in UC Regs, reg 95(1)((a)(i).

This post raises various issues. The most important one for the claimant is that he has been offered a job of 10 hrs/week which he needs to accept or else risk a high level sanction for refusal of employment.( with UC there isn’t a 16hr rule as with JSA ).
Once he is in work his worksearch will be 25 hours per week.
When the UC self employment regs. were devised senior managers talked about preventing people with ” hobbies ” claiming benefits . What type of self employment is your claimant engaged in? Is it seasonal ? Is it part of the gig economy? What were the details of the appeal you mention?
The workcoach in question cannot force him to quit the self employment, he can though submit him to a DM for a medium level sanction ( 28 days ) But if the DM thought his self employed activities were ” good cause ” to not worksearch then the sanction would fail. Volunteering in a charity shop is an example of allowed reduction in worksearch . If he is picking up work related skills via his self employment that should be allowed. The worksearch can include buying clothes, getting hair cut for jobinterviews etc.
What he shouldn’t do is ” contest ” the claimant commitment in the Jobcentre as it is then passed to a neighbouring workcoach who will more than likely endorse it and the whole UC claim including housing costs is closed with immediate effect.

Many thanks.

The appeal was long and complex. The DWP case was reliant on SSWP v JS(2010) UKUT 240 (AAC), in particular “famine and feast” being the test for “gainful” and missed the point about what to take into account. I relied on UC Regs and ADM guidance such as para A1004 about following approved guidance,  H4035 and more. He works long hours for little reward. I don’t want to disclose his occupation as that may identify him. There was also a data protection issue in that JCP had details and income from 2nd s/e job on his claim- it was about a different client andhe could not have done it because it required a license - I dealt with that outside of the appeal. DWP were directed to turn up at the hearing or provide documentation, the direction was ignored as is often the case!

The 10 hour job is only an informal discussion with a friend and not a firm offer, my mistake.

He had already accepted his claimant commitment and it is not being contested, so no issues with UC stopping. There is likely to be a complaint to JCP because of some things the work coach has said to him were simply not true.

You confirmed what I was thinking that the paid work may mean any sanction may fail because of relveant deductions under reg 95. Although I suspect an appeal will be needed if a sanction is applied. He is not opposed to work searching or moving into PAYE, just the commitment is not easily achievable and there is a risk of sanctions- he was told you will be!

If the workcoach is becoming a little strident the threat of a complaint to the District Manager for the JCP area usually works wonders. The complaint ends up on the workcoach’s line managers desk and an explanation requested.

[Edited to remove email addresses]

Dear UB40

Many thanks, I will bear that in mind.

I will not say a lot other than amongst my many sins I am ex-DHSS, DSS, DWP having moved over from one side (darkside) to the other (right side) many years ago. I know and worked with one of the names you gave and have come across them several times since moving over.

Bring back supplementary benefit - that is how old I am !!!!!!

Mkfiftyeight - 02 June 2023 02:15 PM

Dear UB40

I will not say a lot other than amongst my many sins I am ex-DHSS, DSS, DWP having moved over from one side (darkside) to the other (right side) many years ago. I know and worked with one of the names you gave and have come across them several times since moving over.

Bring back supplementary benefit - that is how old I am !!!!!!

Snap, hence my name “From the other side” although I can include Employment Services and Jobcentre into the mix !