Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Mixed-age couple getting back onto HB
MAC were on PC Guarantee Credit and full HB and CTR, advised to claim CA in Jan 19 and as Mrs is under SP age, she got the actual allowance which then knocked them out of PC but still entitled to some HB and CTR and were slightly better off.
In August, duplicate HB/CTR claims made by adviser in ignorance of existing entitlement and then they were subsequently advised to claim UC but had nil entitlement. HB award stopped as a result.
Can we argue that decision stopping HB award in August was incorrect as no entitlement to UC so reg.5 of UC(TP) Regs doesn’t apply anymore so they were never not entitled to HB?
Hope that makes sense, any guidance gratefully received.
The problem is Reg 8: HB terminates two weeks after making a UC claim, as long as the UC claim gets beyond the s4(1)(a) to (d) conditions. It doesn’t matter whether the UC claim is unsuccessful for other reasons
So you think they might be sunk? Even if they were wrongly advised to claim UC?
Could we argue sec.4(1)(b) not satisfied as one partner is over SPA?
Particularly couldn’t we argue that sec.4(1)(b) requires someone to be under SPA and the regs that allow for the exception for couples don’t apply here as that talks about being entitled to UC (which they weren’t)?
(2) A couple may be entitled to universal credit as joint claimants where—
(a)one member does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(b) (under the qualifying age for state pension credit) if the other member does meet that condition;
I don’t think that will help.
Section 4(2):
Regulations may provide for exceptions to the requirement to meet any of the basic conditions (and, for joint claimants, may provide for an exception for one or both).
And UC Reg 3(2) says:
(2) A couple may be entitled to universal credit as joint claimants where—
(a) one member does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(b) (under the qualifying age for state pension credit) if the other member does meet that condition
Reg 8(1)(b) of the Transitional Provisions Regs says:
the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant meets the basic conditions specified in section 4(1)(a) to (d) of the Act (other than any of those conditions which the claimant is not required to meet by virtue of regulations under section 4(2) of the Act).
EDIT: Replies crossed, I see what you are saying but I think the words in bold in Reg 8(1) catch this
Thanks Peter, although was hoping we might find some way to argue this one.
moved
[ Edited: 15 Jan 2020 at 04:18 pm by JoW ]HB will terminate as soon as it falls under the HB(SPC) Regs … which it will do once neither of them has a working age DWP means tested benefit. This will catch couples ageing into mixed age status where the older partner was the claimant with DWP.
Leaving aside arguments about whether the regulations successfully achieve the above, that is what will happen - it is what is intended to happen, let’s say.