Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Ending of couples
Can anyone who understands it talk me though what happens when a couple on UC split up in the middle of a benefit month and one moves out of the home?
Do they both have to make a new claim or just the person who leaves?
Who gets the money due for the couple for the period in the month they were together (if anyone?)
If there is a bedroom tax reduction due because someone leaves is it imposed for the whole of the month?
If the total benefit cap applies and the person remaining in the home is single, will the £500 or £350 limits apply?
I know we have only the original draft, but even comments on these would be welcomed.
As I understand it your UC for the month is calculated according to whatever your situation is at the end of the assessment period regardless what has happened during the course of the month. S in answer to your questions
If one member of a couple leaves one of them can keep the claim going and just notify a change of circumstances - the other one can claim again in his/her own right if eligible. The one that keeps the claim going will be assessed as a single person as that is his/her position at the end of the assessment period.
Yes if there is a bedroom tax position at the end of the assessment period it will be applied to the whole payment. But conversely if someone fills an empty bedroom just before the end of the assessment period there will be no bedroom tax applied for the whole payment.
If the person is single at the end of the assessment period then their award is calculated as a single person and the £350 cap applies.
This is only my understanding from before the new set of regs which I am still ploughing through but I think it’s the case unless they have changed it. I welcome any other thoughts from others though.
For UC most changes of circumstances are treated as taking place at the beginning of the assessment period in which they occur. So in terms of application of benefits caps, bedroom tax, standard applicable amount (single or couple), etc., for UC awards these will be applied at the appropriate level as if the change took place at the start of the assessment period regardless of when it actually happened in that assessment period - see schedule 1, part 3 of the draft UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (Decision and Appeals) Regs 2013.
On the couple claiming bit - the guidance to the draft C&P regs is unclear who it will be who will keep the existing claim but what I’ve heard is that it will be the member of the couple who reports the change of circs who doesn’t need to make a claim and the other will have to make a new single claim.
what if they jointly or on the same day notify the change of circs!?
I would take the view that the person who remains in the household becomes the “change of circumstances” claimant and the person leaving would start a fresh claim. I believe that this is how it is viewed at present?
Thats certainly the case for HB at the moment, but is it also the case for DWP benefits?
What about couples who separate and then maintain 2 separate households under the same roof?
Thats certainly the case for HB at the moment, but is it also the case for DWP benefits?
Unless it’s a joint-claim JSA case, there is bound to be one claimant and a partner who is a dependant.
What about couples who separate and then maintain 2 separate households under the same roof?
Whoever reports it first is the ongoing claimant is the suggested answer above. If they both phone up together, I guess DWP would have to decide, but it wouldn’t make either of them better off, whoever got in first, would it?
My source within the DWP reliably informs me that if two people ring up at the same time they will both be asked a tie breaker question such as “if a train starting from Constantinople at 9:00 am is travelling a journey of 2000 miles toward the town of Upperdrakesbottom at 70 mph and a man is running backward on the train at 5 mph, then how long will it take for the bar to open”? The first one to answer correctly gets to continue with the claim and goes through to Bully’s prize board.
What about a mixed-age couple, one over qaspc and one under? They will be put onto UC.
If they separate, under the same roof, then you’ll end up with one on PC and one on UC.
What happens when they reconcile?
Gareth, trust you to complicate things!
Are you really the The Dutch Association of Furnishing Professionals, (Nederlandse Vereniging van Inrichtingsprofessionals?
Indeed. From our website.
“The nevip is a platform that makes an important contribution to the professionalization of the procurement function of design by industry, (semi-) government institutions and other organizations. The nevip promotes the quality, durability and TCO of professional equipment for offices, educational and healthcare institutions.
Our members are professional decorators, architects and interior designers, manufacturers from home and abroad of furniture and other interior products and their representative entities.
By doing and contribute to research, bringing together stakeholders in the device market, seek membership in professional associations (such as nevi, NAI, VSM), the organization of knowledge (conferences / seminars, social media), news and PR , education and mediation between the parties would nevip contribute to a climate in which demand and supply of the product / service ‘setting’ sustainable are aligned. “
Membership is open to all qualified design professionals upon receipt of, ahem, consideration. Benefits of membership include access to society’s movers and shakers, exclusive use of a network of luxury health spas and hotels, a personalized greeting from the Duchess of Cambridge and a free carriage clock. We act, at all times, in the best interests of our members. As soon as any member reports to us any shenanigans by the DWP we do not hesitate. We act immediately and send someone round to the offending office to re-arrange the furniture.
Rearranging furniture- you mean like the deckchairs on the Titanic- I can see an opening for you at Universal Credit
How dare you!!
Thats certainly the case for HB at the moment, but is it also the case for DWP benefits?
Unless it’s a joint-claim JSA case, there is bound to be one claimant and a partner who is a dependant.
What about couples who separate and then maintain 2 separate households under the same roof?
Whoever reports it first is the ongoing claimant is the suggested answer above. If they both phone up together, I guess DWP would have to decide, but it wouldn’t make either of them better off, whoever got in first, would it?
In the case of DWP benefits the claimant is usually classed as the person who receives the benefit payments on their national insurance number. The dependant partner is usually zero rated and therefore would have to make a claim to benefit in their own right irrespective of if they are the person who stays in the household.
How do you think this would work with UC, where people will be expected to make a joint claim and will each have their own accounts, so presumably would have equal status?
How do you think this would work with UC, where people will be expected to make a joint claim and will each have their own accounts, so presumably would have equal status?
This is how I understand what I have just read. Their will still be a main claimant and the partner will be zero rated, paid under the main claimants household claim. If the system works like current systems then majority of info will be on the main claimants account not partners.
With the plan for PC couple claims requiring both to be at state pension age from Oct 13 there is a need to alert customers to this and encourage claims now in cases where one is receiving state pension and the other on ESA contribution based particularly if it become income related after October. But is it safe to advise those couples where one has SRP and small PC., the younger partner on ESA (migrated IB) which will still be in payment after October that PC will increase to cover the loss of ESA after the 365 days? Note that early move to PC in the first example would protect against under occupation which after October would also require both to be at pension age unless they are safeguarded by being on Pension Credit rules as they are at present. We need to be clear about any opportunity to route claims via PC rather than UC.
[ Edited: 17 Jan 2013 at 09:02 am by FIT Advisor ]Where does the October 2013 date come from?
Where does the October 2013 date come from?
It’ll be Apr 2013 in the pilot areas and Oct 2013 in one-district-per-region nationwide, and so it might be anytime up to 2017 for certain couples.
Where does the October 2013 date come from?
It’ll be Apr 2013 in the pilot areas and Oct 2013 in one-district-per-region nationwide, and so it might be anytime up to 2017 for certain couples.
This could be complicated further because the October roll-out will probably be restricted by case-mix (as well as by location.)
Agree that the migration and roll out will cause problems, and if someone loses their income either either benefit or earned income and has to link to a partners pension income, then the intention of both having to at the womens age to access SRP will potentially catch some people out. Hence the need to be able to circumvent and advise of early move into PC as a couple, unless there is a potential loss for them. I have assisted in a few cases and the department seems to be fully aware of why the decision is being made. Another thought - if we have cases where it is clear that it would be beneficial to claim UC, for example working a few hours and getting JSA top up, and UC (which will make work pay) would increase their combined income, will it be possible to request that the claim is transferred, even if it means closing one down and reclaiming?
It’ll be Apr 2013 in the pilot areas.
Can that be right? (Given that couples can’t make a claim for UC in the pathfinders. )