Hi,

Hope someone can help me on this one. I have a client who was working 40 hours per week. As from 01.07.07 her hours were cut to 20 so she put a claim in for HB on 01.07.07.

Unfortunately she gets paid a month in hand so at the end of July she received her pay for June. she took this payslip to HB who obviously said based on inccome does not qualify for any HB.

My point of argument is, this person is being penalised for being paid month in hand. if paid at end of June for that month, HB would then have paid her from 01.07.07 when hours were cut and the July pay slip would have reflected this.

Anyone had experience of this or know of any legislation that backs up my argument ?

Thanks

Ade

i woulnd't have thought you had an argument - when the reduced hours come through on the next payslip, she'll then be entitled. look at it the other way round. if she'd gone from 20 hours to 40 hours, she would have stopped being entitlted at the point when she started getting paid for 40 hours. That's my contribution to the debate!

errr not necesarily, if she went to HB to inform them her hours were going up I'm sure they would use the date her hours increased from to stop her benefit and not the date she got paid for the increase !

Irrespective of the manner in which LAs are operating, earnings are attributable to the period they are in respect of. The date of payment makes no difference.

Thanks for that Kevin, don't happen to know the regulation that refers to that do you ?

There is not a specific reg for earnings on this; therefore it becomes a default position. This has been confirmed in Cmmr Decisions - only had time to wheel out CH/2349/2002 (p11).

The "rule of thumb" is that any type of income is attributable to the period it is in respect of, UNLESS legislation directs otherwise (e.g. Tax Credits).

Thanks for that Kevin