Could you post a link to other discussions please Ariadne. I only found ones, like that highlighted where it had been mentioned but not discussed (though I haven't done a thorough search).
I'm not so sure it's necessarily a loophole as such, after all, there are many circumstances where a person can break/change a claim in order to take advantage of more generous provisions (LHA, CA and CP, swapping ESA claimants, etc). Whether or not the question is discussed here, the DWP will eventually get wise to it if they want to. What I find more interesting in the way of ommissions or loopholes in the new rules is that they seem to be so arbitrary in deciding who should get significantly more help than others.
I had very briefly considered deprivation but quickly discounted it as it doesn't apply in this situation since income support is not income for income support. Have I missed something...?
|