Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
new DWP transitional element guidance
evening all
in this new DWP transitional element guidance states -
‘’‘If you live with a child in higher education
If you live with a child aged 19 and in full-time, higher education, you may not get a child element as part of your entitlement. This depends on when your child turned 19.
Even if you currently receive a child element on your existing benefits or tax credits, the transitional element will be calculated without it if your child is not eligible under Universal Credit rules.’‘’
How do we interpret this? As we know, at present, even if the child is not a QYP for UC purposes they are including the child in the indicative UC, as so reducing any TE.
does this agree with that, or say the opposite of what they are doing?
I think it says the opposite which is very confusing. It seems to be saying they would calculate the indicative UC without including the child which is not what reg 54(2) (a) of the UC(TP) Regs says. What do others think?
I also think it says the opposite.
So it seems that DWP are agreeing with the argument that Charles has put forward on other threads on this topic and, incidentally, set out in FTT18 which was uploaded to the CPAG site a few days before this guidance was published: https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/tools-templates/migration-universal-credit-tools-and-templates
That argument states that the position which now appears to be accepted by DWP is consistent with reg.54(2)(a) UC TP Regs.
I find the guidance a little garbled in places, for example do they mean higher or further education?
That’s a good point Owen - they surely mean further.
My understanding is that DWP has been including 19 year olds in further education in the indicative UC - I’d be interested to know if that is generally what has been happening in practice?
I’m not sure whether DWP is accepting Charles’ argument or whether it’s just poorly drafted guidance?
Yes, we’ve seen cases in which DWP have not acted in the way that this page would suggest
I read it to be the complete opposite of what we think is the case - no Child Element in Total Legacy Amount or Indicative UC Amount - so you get the same outcome of no TE for it but you’ve just got there a different way.
Not sure why they’d have written it that way though and it is confusing.
Also agree on it being confusing to say ‘higher education’ as I think that can mean advanced education.
And to add, no idea what this part means -
“In cases where the Limited Capability for Work element is replaced by the Limited Capability for Work-related Activity (LCWRA), you’ll get the difference between the amounts of those elements.”
Why is it being replaced? Why is the claimant getting the difference?
I was thinking of emailing the engagement team about the 19yo issue so I’ll mention the higher education thing as well.
I have emailed them Rachel but no harm in another one going in!
They are using words inaccurately… eg the word ‘payment’