Client is in receipt of 50+ element but has been in job for more than 5 years. Is this correct?

reg 18 WTC(EMR) regs seems to imply that the qualifying remunerative work has just started:

i.e. (3) (a) he is aged at least 50; and
(b) he starts qualifying remunerative work for at least
16 hours per week; and
(c) he satisfies the conditions in ... etc

you are quite right it's a mistake, unless perhaps there is a partner who qualifies.


I copied this from their Guidance Manual.




TCTM02702 - Entitlement: WTC - 50 plus
Qualifying conditions
Working Tax Credit ( Entitlement & Maximum Rate ) Regulations 2002, Reg. 18
The 50+ element is payable for a continuous period of no longer than 12 months following the date of the return to qualifying remunerative work of the claimant or, in the case of a joint claim, the return to qualifying remunerative work of at least one of the claimants. The 12 months may consist of more than one period of qualifying remunerative work, provided the gap between any consecutive pair of those periods is not more than 26 weeks. The claimant, or in the case of a joint claim, at least one of the claimants must:

be aged at least 50, and
start qualifying remunerative work. of at least 16 hours a week and have either
Received one of the following benefits for at least six months immediately prior to starting qualifying remunerative work
Income Support
Jobseekers Allowance
Incapacity Benefit
Severe Disablement Allowance
Both a State Retirement Pension and state pension credit within the meaning of the State Pension Credit Act 2002(b); or
A training allowance paid by the Secretary of State under section 2(1) of the Employment and Training Act 1973(c) to a person (arranging to, or) participating in a Work-Based Learning for Adults or Training for Work schemes, or
received a combination of the above benefits for consecutive periods, amounting in the aggregate to at least six months, the last of which ends immediately prior to starting qualifying remunerative work ('consecutive periods' are periods, any pair of which is separated by a gap of not more than 12 weeks), or
have been credited with National Insurance Contributions in accordance with the Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 for at least six months immediately prior to starting qualifying remunerative work.

Here is a related issue. I have been asked for tax credit advice by a 53 year old single woman who is returning to her job after 12 months sickness. Her normal work hours are 30, but she will initially do 16. If she qualifies for the 50+ element then WTC will be worth £40 per week to her. However, i am concerned about the wording of reg. 18 (3) (b) which says that the claimant '...STARTS qualifying remunerative work...'. Would this exclude people who are returning to a job kept open to them? Initially i thought not, particularly as CPAG refers to '..RETURNING to work...'(2004/05 p.1330 line 18). However, i am now wondering, bearing in mind the wording of the regulation and the fact that the 50+ element replaced the New Deal 50+ that was intended to assist people to find work.
Anyone got any firm ideas please?

As Sherlock Holmes would say, "Watson, this is a two pipe problem"...

I assume "start work" is the same as start remunerative work. If so, reg 4 of the abovementioned WTC regs might help. The forth condition of reg 4 reads..."The work is done for payment or in expectation of payment".

I assume the person concerned was still on contract, but no longer being paid, because of sickness. If so, I think you could argue that they are "starting work" because only now will they receive payment or expect payment (because of their return to paid work).

So far as intention is concerned, I would have thought that the 50+ element was designed to bring the older person back in from the cold of unemployment, irrespective of whether the absence was due to early retirement or long term illness etc.

Earlier in this thread there was reference to overpaid WTC. I bet you a kit kat that they will try to recover it. If so, will you be making a complaint to get it in front of the adjudicator? If this kind of case cannot win, what can?

Steve

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Steve. I agree entirely with your reasoning on reasonable expectation and policy intent, but you know what these things are like...
Certainly, in this case, the claimant has been on IB and has not earned for some months. In this respect, she has moved from having a job available to her from which she could not expect payment as she was sick, to engaging in remunerative work. As this is a qualifying condition for the basic element it looks like home and dry.
Thanks again.