Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Horrendous mixed-age couple scenario, please help
UC should include one carer element I think? The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element. See UC Reg 29(4).
Could the son move out for long enough for them to get 2 x SDP and sort out their claims then return?
UC should include one carer element I think? The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element. See UC Reg 29(4).
Thanks, well spotted. I’ll have to go away and recalculate but that could even things up. I make it there’s now an approximate £23 \p/w shortfall. Thanks so much again, at least this isn’t as bad as I first feared.
[ Edited: 5 Apr 2019 at 10:36 pm by Paul_Treloar_AgeUK ]Could the son move out for long enough for them to get 2 x SDP and sort out their claims then return?
Don’t think so but even if he did, then they’d lose SDP as soon as he came back and so we’d be back to square one wouldn’t we? My head hurts.
Could the son move out for long enough for them to get 2 x SDP and sort out their claims then return?
Don’t think so but even if he did, then they’d lose SDP as soon as he came back and so we’d be back to square one wouldn’t we? My head hurts.
Mine too :-( Yes they would lose SDP when he returned but if they’d managed to claim PC while SDP’s were in place and got HB in place, they could lose the SDPs and return to CA for him and underlying entitlement to CA for her? It’s probably too complicated to work but if you apply the carer element to the UC claim as HB says, their loss isn’t so bad.
Another thing just occurred to me. The calculation shows no housing costs contribution, but there should be unless the son is under 21 or his IIDB includes a PIP-equivalent supplement
DOH! sorry, ignore me. Claimant on PIP/DLA, no HCC
Actually, come to think of it, does he have an attendance supplement in his IIDB? Because if has that will enable the SDP to be paid
[ Edited: 29 Mar 2019 at 12:09 pm by HB Anorak ]Another thing just occurred to me. The calculation shows no housing costs contribution, but there should be unless the son is under 21 or his IIDB includes a PIP-equivalent supplement
DOH! sorry, ignore me. Claimant on PIP/DLA, no HCC
Yep, that got me first time around too.
Another thing just occurred to me. The calculation shows no housing costs contribution, but there should be unless the son is under 21 or his IIDB includes a PIP-equivalent supplement
DOH! sorry, ignore me. Claimant on PIP/DLA, no HCC
Actually, come to think of it, does he have an attendance supplement in his IIDB? Because if has that will enable the SDP to be paid
Don’t think so but I’ll check for sure.
I have spoken to PC about a ‘mixed age’ couple case this morning (previously on PC&HB; - wrongly advised to claim UC when became responsible for a child - UC claim now successfully withdrawn -PC back in payt apart from child addition). It appears PC now have a special team(s) dealing with child dependants and ‘mixed age’ couple cases. There person I spoke to volunteered the opinion that the May changes will be a nightmare for them to deal with!
I thought the normal 3 month backdating rule was going to apply, even with the new rules for mixed age couples from 15/5/2019? So she could make a PC claim on 19/7/2019 if she wished…..
Backdating route only works if you backdate a claim to before 15/5/19. Claim is treated as being made before 15/5/19 so is allowed. Not possible in this case as clt doesn’t reach PC age until after 15/5/19, even with max backdating claim cannot be treated as having been made before 15/5/19 because she’s not eligible before 15/5/19.
Yes, in order to get three-months backdating, you’ve got to have an actual entitlement to PC and/or HB on 14.05.19.
This client has missed out on the deadline by a matter of days, her partner is 55 years old so they’re getting hammered for the next 10-11 years.
Imagine that, you finally reach retirement age and this government of rich public school boys and girls have decided they’ll actively make sure you’re in penury for a good few years more.
I have spoken to PC about a ‘mixed age’ couple case this morning (previously on PC&HB; - wrongly advised to claim UC when became responsible for a child - UC claim now successfully withdrawn -PC back in payt apart from child addition). I
but this son has IIDB, so is, one has to assume, an adult (injured at work)
UC should include one carer element I think? The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element. See UC Reg 29(4).
Sorry if this is an easy look up but I wanted to check I wasn’t misunderstanding this - the wife is reaching pension age and a LCWRA element can be included in a UC award in relation to her? Does that mean pensioners in mixed-age UC couples are subject to WCA?
UC should include one carer element I think? The same individual cannot generate both LCWRA and carer element, but the LCWRA element is awarded in respect of the wife while the husband can attract the carer element. See UC Reg 29(4).
Sorry if this is an easy look up but I wanted to check I wasn’t misunderstanding this - the wife is reaching pension age and a LCWRA element can be included in a UC award in relation to her? Does that mean pensioners in mixed-age UC couples are subject to WCA?
para.5 of sch.9 of the UC regs allows people over SPA who receive AA, DLA HRC or PIP EDL to be awarded LCWRA element in a UC award.
Otherwise, yes pensioners will need to do a WCA to establish entitlement.