Forum Home → Discussion → Benefits for older people → Thread
Winter Fuel Payments restricted to PC claimants
Rachel Reeves just announced that WFP’s will be limited to people in receipt of Pension Credit from this year.
DWP statistics show there are more than 800,000 eligible people who could claim PC but aren’t.
So she says they’ll do some “awareness raising” with local authorities.
What a complete shambles of a new government we seem to have, at least in terms of social security.
Thought this was meant to be a “caring and compassionate” government. Like you said Paul, what a complete shambles!
Also - this doesn’t capture all of the poorest pensioners. A pensioner could have the same level of income as the basic PC rate, or a few pennies over, but not be entitled because their income comes from state pension.
I think Rachel needs to start funding more staff in Pension Credit. I currently have a new claim with no decision from 01/05/24 and a MR request outstanding from 22/02/24.
Also - this doesn’t capture all of the poorest pensioners. A pensioner could have the same level of income as the basic PC rate, or a few pennies over, but not be entitled because their income comes from state pension.
That’s one of the key groups of people we’re very concerned about - new State Pension pays about £3 more than basic PC amount so the sums can be very marginal.
I think Rachel needs to start funding more staff in Pension Credit. I currently have a new claim with no decision from 01/05/24 and a MR request outstanding from 22/02/24.
We’ve got one PC claim outstanding from October 2023 and another from January 2024.
I think Rachel needs to start funding more staff in Pension Credit. I currently have a new claim with no decision from 01/05/24 and a MR request outstanding from 22/02/24.
We’ve got one PC claim outstanding from October 2023 and another from January 2024.
And we know what happened before when they had a take-up drive when they already had a backlog:
[ - new State Pension pays about £3 more than basic PC amount so the sums can be very marginal.
That’s IF you get the full amount, which many don’t. I’ve been told of people who don’t get the full amount but have been told (not by DWP) that getting the new state pension disqualifies you from PC. Then add on those with kids, caring, disability, leasehold etc, even with full nSP.
I think if there was any seriousness about takeup rates for SPC then the Government would be looking not just, as they said they were in the debate yesterday, on LA work on take up but also at:
1. Amending the SRP claim form so that it also counted as an SPC claim form - I appreciate that would make it longer if the form asked all the questions needed to determine SPC however, it could just have a box saying “We can also treat this as a claim for SPC, would you like us to do this? Note, many people are entitled to have their SRP topped up by SPC.” Then they could where that box is ticked (1) award the SRP as quick as they can and meanwhile (2) send claimant additional questions to get the SPC sorted.
2. For all current SRP claimants not on SPC they should send them a letter saying that they might be entitled to have their SRP topped up by £X if [various conditions]. If they would like to do this then please return the enclosed short form- then do the questions as follow up. That might make some inroads into the 100s thousands under claiming.
Mere exhortations about tackling underclaiming are always a bit thin in circumstances where the reason the problem arises is because the Government chooses to separate out the claiming process as they have done.
I think if there was any seriousness about takeup rates for SPC then the Government would be looking not just, as they said they were in the debate yesterday, on LA work on take up but also at:
1. Amending the SRP claim form so that it also counted as an SPC claim form - I appreciate that would make it longer if the form asked all the questions needed to determine SPC however, it could just have a box saying “We can also treat this as a claim for SPC, would you like us to do this? Note, many people are entitled to have their SRP topped up by SPC.” Then they could where that box is ticked (1) award the SRP as quick as they can and meanwhile (2) send claimant additional questions to get the SPC sorted.
2. For all current SRP claimants not on SPC they should send them a letter saying that they might be entitled to have their SRP topped up by £X if [various conditions]. If they would like to do this then please return the enclosed short form- then do the questions as follow up. That might make some inroads into the 100s thousands under claiming.
Mere exhortations about tackling underclaiming are always a bit thin in circumstances where the reason the problem arises is because the Government chooses to separate out the claiming process as they have done.
Thanks Martin, interesting thoughts. On (1), I think it would need to be a single option, maybe right upfront, about whether you also want to be assessed for SPC - the SP claim form has 66 questions already and the PC claim form has 243 questions (although obviously there will be duplication here).
Aligned to that however must be something about the telephone gateway to avoid them gatekeeping and refusing to allow people to actually make a PC claim because they decide the caller isn’t entitled. This issue comes and goes over time but it does keep happening. We’re also dealing with a PC claim (again) where Pension Service are refusing to process until the client claims State Pension (which is just nonsense).
I do like option (2) - that would in theory be quite straightforward one would imagine. However, again and as Shawn alluded to in the previous thread linked to, DWP would also need to invest in ensuring there are sufficient staff to administer all of this. When they started the take-up drive in 2022, they were woefully unprepared and many people became very frustrated about the lack of progress and simply confirmed their fears about endless bureaucracy if they decided to try and claim PC.
[ Edited: 30 Jul 2024 at 09:06 pm by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]“Aligned to that however must be something about the telephone gateway to avoid them gatekeeping and refusing to allow people to actually make a PC claim because they decide the caller isn’t entitled. This issue comes and goes over time but it does keep happening.”
I have been told by someone on the telephone gateway that customers ring up to claim PC and when they are told they don’t qualify they say that they were not asked about savings by the organisation who did the calculation. The implication is that there are some benefits calculation programmes which don’t ask about savings, or not early enough.
Although I have had some of mine (thoroughly interrogated by me) say they were told they were not entitled to PC because the Pension Service refuse to consider the SDP, so they have to wait and reapply.
I think if there was any seriousness about takeup rates for SPC then the Government would be looking not just, as they said they were in the debate yesterday, on LA work on take up but also at:
1. Amending the SRP claim form so that it also counted as an SPC claim form - I appreciate that would make it longer if the form asked all the questions needed to determine SPC however, it could just have a box saying “We can also treat this as a claim for SPC, would you like us to do this? Note, many people are entitled to have their SRP topped up by SPC.” Then they could where that box is ticked (1) award the SRP as quick as they can and meanwhile (2) send claimant additional questions to get the SPC sorted.
2. For all current SRP claimants not on SPC they should send them a letter saying that they might be entitled to have their SRP topped up by £X if [various conditions]. If they would like to do this then please return the enclosed short form- then do the questions as follow up. That might make some inroads into the 100s thousands under claiming.
Mere exhortations about tackling underclaiming are always a bit thin in circumstances where the reason the problem arises is because the Government chooses to separate out the claiming process as they have done.
It reminds me of the old JSA IB/Conts claim form where the middle pages were if you claimed income based but you just ticked a box and signed the form if they knew they would only gets conts
Instead of looking for measures to improve DWP performance on PC, how about giving the job of deciding PC claims to local authorities, where there is also an HB claim? After all, they have all the necessary information from the HB and CTR claims, whereas the DWP doesn’t (or can’t access it). Too weird?
We’ve started a petition against the changes. Please do sign and share.
DWP have confirmed to us that both parts of Pension Credit, Guarantee Credit and Savings Credit, will bring about eligibility for WFP’s.
They’ve also updated their online information - Winter Fuel Payment
One issue which has caught us out in the care home residents aspect. We’d assumed you wouldn’t be able to get a WFP if you were claiming PC or the other MTB’s as this was broadly the situation previously.
However, it says now:
If you live in a care home
You can get Winter Fuel Payment if you live in a care home. You will not be eligible if both of the following apply:
* you get Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
* you lived in a care home for the whole time from 24 June to 22 September 2024
Not sure where the three-month period comes from and have sought clarification.
If you live in a care home
You can get Winter Fuel Payment if you live in a care home. You will not be eligible if both of the following apply:* you get Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
* you lived in a care home for the whole time from 24 June to 22 September 2024Not sure where the three-month period comes from and have sought clarification.
Is that ‘not’ in the first sentence wrong? The dates might seem to be the run up to the qualifying date.