Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
ESA change of circs, can client stay on esa or ???
My client is one of a couple, they get ESA INCOME BASED , he is is in support group. The couple are about to separate. MY client wonders if he can stay on his existing ESA award or will it end in which he may have to claim UC and of course HB would end too !!
If he is in the ESA support group and has no other income apart from maybe ESA(c), he will remain entitled to ESA(ir) as a single person because the EDP is included so the (ir) rate exceeds the (c) rate. If he has any other income, perhaps a private pension, and ESA(ir) ends when they separate, it doesn’t necessarily follow that HB will end as well. HB will be reassessed to take account of whatever income he still has and it probably won’t be enough to extinguish HB completely.
That assumes he is the HB claimant to start with. If the HB is in the partner’s name, he wont be able to make a new claim of his own and so UC would be the only option.
If he is the HB claimant, and if ESA(ir) does end, it is important to keep HB in the loop - report the change proactively rather than wait to be contacted by them. It is very common for HB to be stopped in cases like this because the Council is notified by DWP that ESA(ir) has ended, and if it is not spelt out to them clearly that the claimant has not won the lottery or been appointed CEO of a multinational corporation then they end the HB award and the claimant claims UC even if that would not have been the “better buy” in his/her case.
Having said all that, unless the claimant is on PIP and entitled to an SDP as a single person, chances are UC will be the better buy even from October if and when the Covid uplift ends
Thanks HB anorak, yes cl gets pip and was getting a double sdp until his partner lost her pip last year, don’t know yet if he is HB claimant so to clarify >>>when partner moves out she just comes off his esa income based award and he stays on it without award ending ?? and same thing happens with HB if he is the claimant. I do worry that HB will say a new claim has to be made in his sole name ????but you think that can be avoided ,he does not get c/esa. and just to muddy the water he tells me he has tried to get a higher pip award on the advice of his support worker and waiting for an MR outcome any day now.. I have warned him it could be an outcome he does not want !
[ Edited: 13 Jul 2021 at 03:53 pm by Diogenes ]HB is always a claim made in someone’s sole name. If that person has a partner, s/he is merely an arithmetical function of the means test. Partner moving in or moving out does not in itself cause the sole claimant’s HB to end.
But the important thing to establish in this case is just who is already that sole name HB claimant
Thanks HB
HB is always a claim made in someone’s sole name. If that person has a partner, s/he is merely an arithmetical function of the means test. Partner moving in or moving out does not in itself cause the sole claimant’s HB to end.
But the important thing to establish in this case is just who is already that sole name HB claimant
I have a prisoner claimant now outside the 13 week temp absence rule. I have advised the partner they will have to claim UC however, they have been given conflicting advice - the .gov website mentions a partner taking over the HB claim where the one claiming is sentenced to prison.
Can you point me in the right direction of where to look for this in the regs so I can confirm this to them.
Unfortunately there isn’t a bit of law somewhere which just says “If you are in this position, then you have to claim UC” to make it easy for us.
The position is that, conceptually, the prisoner is the only HB claimant. His partner is not the HB claimant. Therefore, all of the rules relating to absences etc are applied to him as the claimant and once he ceases to meet the relevant criteria, his entitlement will end.
In the olden days, before UC, you could talk about “switching claimants” as shorthand for a situation where the member of the couple who is fulfilling the “claimant” role relinquishes their award and the member of the couple fulfilling the “partner” role starts a new claim in their own right so that the roles are reversed. So perhaps in older material, there might be a suggesting that this would be appropriate. The reason why this doesn’t work anymore is because the second part of that operation - the former “partner” making a new claim for HB - is no longer legally possible due to the rules relating to UC.
That’s a good enough way of explaining it for my purposes thank you!