Unwell 18 year old for TCs but not UC

Hi Team

Grateful for thoughts. Household has an 18 year old who has attended college very intermittently with long term health problems and PIP.  She is/was included in the tax credit award. Mum got a Migration Notice and claimed, and put the 18 year old as a non-dep due to the extended absence from college. I know UC does not have the same flexibility around extended absence due to illness. Does placing her as a dep or a non-dep make a difference in how UC would actually consider her position? And would it impact the TE calculation.

Thank you

Hi Rebecca

I’m assuming that CTC was getting paid on the basis of the temporary interruption in education rules. Problem is that there is no equivalent in UC so unless yp still has a place on a course (or been accepted or enrolled onto a new course starting in Sept) they aren’t going to be a QYP under UC rules. Even if parent said she was a dependant child on the form I can’t see UC treating them as a QYP if UC definition not met. So chances of child elements being paid in UC award will depend on whether it’s possible to argue that young person is still on a course of FT non adv ed which they have not yet been dismissed from or abandoned - not whether YP was described as a dep or non-dep. 

There is a major problem with the calculation of TP.  The way Reg 54(2)(a) of the TP Regs operate means there will be no transitional protection to make up for any loss of child elements. This is because UC indicative amount ‘assumes’ that you are responsible for any child or young person that you get CTC for - so child elements are included in UC indicative amount used in calculating transitional protection even tho’ not entitled to child elements for them in your actual UC award. We have recently spoken to a parent where this is what happened.

I would argue that as the child is not a QYP for UC purposes, Reg 54(2)(a) doesn’t apply (as the reference in those Regs to a QYP is a reference to a QYP under UC rules - see the definition in Reg 2).

This is similar to a case where a claimant migrates with a 19-year-old-child on their tax credits, but who isn’t a QYP for UC purposes.

It will likely require going to appeal, but I think the chances of success are pretty decent.