Have we missed some important change or is it that I've not seen an SDA client in same circs...?

A colleage's client is on SDA and recently claimed CA. DWP letter to client to say she can choose which benefit she wants to claim. If she chooses SDA it will be reduced by amount of CA. If she doesn't reply she'll be paid CA but would still have to send in sick notes for SDA.

This then means no underlaying entitlement so the person for whom she is caring will lose any sdp.

Soooo if she decides she wants to continue claiming SDA does this mean her claim for CA will not be considered?

If you've never seen the letter it's 6 pages long, 3 of them consisting of questions/comparison tables.

Really straightforward for clients then

SDA and CA are both income replacement benefits to which the overlapping rules apply, like ICB, bereavement bens and state pension. Basic principle is that if you are entitled to both you get an amount equivalent to the higher of whichever benefits you qualify for. However they must obviously process the claim because if you are entield to a benefit which you are not paid solely because of the overlapping rules, you can get the fringe benefits of that underlying entitlement, ie in this case the carer's premium on top of any disability premium with MTBs.

Schedule 2 of the IS regs says that a person will only lose the SDP if there is a person either living with him (broadly) or "entitled to and receiving" carer's allce. I read that as meaning if there is only underlying entitlement and no actual payment then no reduction. What you describe is one of the miscellaneous ways of dealing with overlapping benefits, ie you pay the lower one in full and top it up to the level of the higher. That suggest that she would actually be in receipt of CA plus a bit of SDA, so no SDP. However that's not how I read the regulations which suggest that the higher one only is paid, which on your description would be SDA. (OOverlapping Benefits Regulations 2 and 4)

Soemitmes you can't help feeling they make it so complicated on purpose.

I understand the o/b rules. My concern is if she hadn't come in with the DWP 'Proforma 255' she wouldn't have had a clue what to do and who can blame her. She'd simply claimed CA, expected cp due to overlapping benefits and underlying entitlement with no effect on other persons sdp.

Below are just some sections of the letter(obviously my acronyms). Ricky Gervais "are you avin a laff" comes to mind


"What if I want to keep getting the SDA?

Tick the SDA box on the back called Your reply....A formal decision on your CA will be sent to you. This will say you are entitled to CA but that you will not be paid...You will carry on claiming SDA as usual....".


"What if I want to change to CA?

Tick the CA box on the back called Your reply...We will then arrange for your SDA to be reduced by the amount of CA we pay....The SDA that you have received will be taken into account when calculating CA that is due...".


"What happens if I do not make a choice?

The law says that if you do not make a choice you will be paid CA instead of SDA...".

Simple

Hiya Sue

You say in your first post that "if she choses SDA it will be reduced by amount of CA. If she doesn't reply she'll be paid CA but would still have to send in sick notes for SDA."

In the next post you say that the letter to the client states:

"What if i want to keep getting the SDA?"

Tick the SDA box on the back called your reply....A formal decision on your CA will be sent to you. This will say you are entitled to CA but that you will not be paid.....you will carry on claiming SDA as usual..."

This contradicts the post above and this surely would mean she would have underlying entitlement and the person in receipt of the SDP will continue to receive it as the SDA would (and should) just continue?

I'm really not sure what your query is - unless i'm completely missing something. (That's quite possible believe me! )

Understanding the overlapping benefits rules isn’t rocket science- it’s just a lot more complicated!

In this case the complication is that both CA and SDA are non - contributory benefits, and SDA is at a higher rate. They also both attract the respective award of NI credits. At first glance there appears to be ‘no advantage’ in claiming CA whilst still getting SDA at the higher rate.

Because of this, the CA unit is making the customer aware of the basic choices available. However, depending on which benefit she ‘keeps’, this then may affect any IS premium(s).

Whichever benefit the customer chooses, she would continue to have an underlying entitlement to the other benefit, providing all the relevant conditions continue to be met.

The customer needs to have a ‘better off calculation’ that JCP, or an advice centre could perform.

.

I know I'm waffling on and wish I'd never posted in first place. I feel I'm digging myself deeper and deeper.

I don't have a query as such, it was just a general comment on the CA letter and how it would confuse claimants. How many of them understand underlying entitlement and overlapping benefits anyway?

Choose SDA and you will get underlying entitlement to CA
Choose CA and you will be paid SDA less the amount of CA we pay.
If you don't choose we'll pay you CA.

so with the latter you are actually being paid both and not simply having u/e.

Doesn't really matter for our client as she'll get cp and dp. But I am concerned for others loss of sdp.

I rang CAU. He confirmed proforma had generated calls from baffled claimants.

Sorry Ken but I'm going to scan it over by email. Just tell me to shut up if I've not got it right.

You're right of course - the letter is VERY confusing.

Yes, very confusing.
i had a client with what must have been a similar letter, only it was carer allowance overlapping with IB increase for wife, and the 'guidance' didn't actually tie up with that situation, plus 'offered' a withdrawal of CA claim choice - after head scratching, decided to not tick anything and write in text what client wanted - which was to establish underlying entitlement but not be paid.

JJ

A dependent addition is not a personal benefit.

I am almost sure the overlapping rules would not apply in that case and feel the Carers Allowance takes president over any dependent addition so carers would be paid regardless off anything you ask for.

i'm sure you're right, bill, and i can't remember now whether or not i spotted that... but the form made so little sense we just crossed out the boxes and told them exactly what he wanted to claim.

we had no problem with the CA after that, and our clients rarely bring me problems with C.A. the trouble was with the IS D-M and the administration, getting his his SDPs and CP. the client knew what he was entitled to, because he had checked for himself from a variety of sources available to him, including CLS direct, the law centre, and by reading the regulations for himself. he had to appeal to get the correct decision, because nobody would listen to him, and he became so offended with the runaround he was given is the whole process, he instructed me to ask for compensation for his telephone calls and stress - this is a severely disabled man with a severely disabled wife...he is a very polite and quietly spoken man, and I had a sample of what he was up against when I made a phone-call for him. even so, i wasn't optimistic of his chances, the delay was 'only' round about three months...

i was furious on his behalf when they demanded to see proof of his phone-calls in connection with his compensation request - what charm school do they send customer service managers to? he had that proof too, and they grudginly paid up. it wasn't about the money of course, but respect.

I've got another IS complaint case, which i'm not sure what to do about. this involved an erroneous decision perverse to the point of absurdity with an excessive delay - i don't think a decision-maker could even have written a submission on it, and the complaint has been dismissed with lies or stupidity or i don't know what...anyway, sorry for the long digression, i'm going to talk to my client about it again...

jan

Thanks to suelees for sending a copy to us, the DWP standard letter to claimants asking them to choose between carer's allowance and severe disablement allowance is now available on rightsnet -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/DWP_CA_proforma_255.pdf