IB transfer to ESA

seven-day-weekend

nogginthenog wrote: »

In general, you will be begin the conversion process on the scheduled review date for your personal capability assessment. This means that most claimants will already know the date on which they should be converted to ESA. However the new regulations give the DWP the right to call anyone for transfer at any time, so there will be no legal grounds for challenging a decision to convert you earlier. The DWP state that some adjustments to conversion dates may need to be made in order to ensure a steady supply of claimants for conversion.

The guidance gives no indication of when claimants who do not have a review date, for example because they are exempt from the personal capability assessment and have not heard from the DWP in years, will be converted.

The DWP do say, though, that their intention is to migrate incapacity benefit and income support claimants first and severe disablement allowance (SDA) customers only once these have been completed.

Claimants who receive national insurance credits only will not even begin to be migrated until after March 2014.

Claimants who reach pensionable age before the end of March 2014 will not be migrated to ESA, they will stay on their current benefits. The DWP say this is to avoid people having to make two changes of benefit in a short period of time.

In total, around 1.5 million claimants will go through the migration process, excluding credits only claimants, amounting to 10,000 cases a week for three years.

The intention is that when the entire process of conversion is completed, there will be no claimants left on incapacity related benefits other than ESA, with the exception of SDA claimants who are over pensionable age.

:jMy husband's 65th birthday is in January 2014:beer:

Thank you for an informative post.

donnac2558

sunnyone wrote: »

Pre 1995 the extra is a pension paid depending on age when you took ill and your NI contributions, after 1995 its an age addition and the maximum now is @£105 pw but its being reduced year on year until it gone, its illegal because we should have transitional protection.

Ah, thank you. Yes it was 1995 when I took ill and age addition rings a bell with me.

No where near £105 a week unfortunately.:(

sunnyone

donnac2558 wrote: »

Ah, thank you. Yes it was 1995 when I took ill and age addition rings a bell with me.

No where near £105 a week unfortunately.:(

The basic is £89pw and I think there is another rate in between the rates Ive mentioned.

NASA_2

I'm sure if its legal then someone will launch a court case against it and win. Otherwise that was probably bluster.

sunnyone

NASA wrote: »

I'm sure if its legal then someone will launch a court case against it and win. Otherwise that was probably bluster.

So the transitional protection is a joke then?

It costs a lot of money to challenge the goverment, I cant get legal aid or I would do it, its wrong and its stealing £1000 pa from people like me once the extra pension gos, I dont get age allowance but additional pension from pre-`95 based on my contributions till my accident.

Of course the people on means tested benefits arnt losing anything, there IS stays the same, it the people who worked that get s!it on as usual.

NASA_2

sunnyone wrote: »

So the transitional protection is a joke then?

It costs a lot of money to challenge the goverment, I cant get legal aid or I would do it, its wrong and its stealing £1000 pa from people like me once the extra pension gos, I dont get age allowance but additional pension from pre-`95 based on my contributions till my accident.

Of course the people on means tested benefits arnt losing anything, there IS stays the same, it the people who worked that get s!it on as usual.

I never said it was a joke. I said it was probably bluster. There are plenty of people on the various 'Incapacity Benefits' who have enough wealth and far too much time on their hands (Evidenced by some of the pointless crusades they engage in with regard to their 'rights') and could challenge the legality if they wanted to. Or even some of the Benefit advocacy groups.

Nobody, that I am aware of, is having their benefit reduced because of the regulations. The differences between benefits are just being done away with.

sunnyone

NASA wrote: »

I never said it was a joke. I said it was probably bluster. There are plenty of people on the various 'Incapacity Benefits' who have enough wealth and far too much time on their hands (Evidenced by some of the pointless crusades they engage in with regard to their 'rights') and could challenge the legality if they wanted to. Or even some of the Benefit advocacy groups.

Nobody, that I am aware of, is having their benefit reduced because of the regulations. The differences between benefits are just being done away with.

The diffrence is (will be once complete) £1000 pa and its been taken from people who need the money, not millionares living it up but severely disabled people like me.

I worked up until 2 hours before my accident, it was overtime on a Saturday and the extra money is based on my contributions, not a gift why should people like me lose out when people on IS lose nothing?

Your better off being like the trolls here and just sit on your backside and claiming what ever you can because anyone thats always worked loses out big time if they ever need to claim benefits.

NASA_2

sunnyone wrote: »

The diffrence is (will be once complete) £1000 pa and its been taken from people who need the money, not millionares living it up but severely disabled people like me.

I worked up until 2 hours before my accident, it was overtime on a Saturday and the extra money is based on my contributions, not a gift why should people like me lose out when people on IS lose nothing?

Your better off being like the trolls here and just sit on your backside and claiming what ever you can because anyone thats always worked loses out big time if they ever need to claim benefits.

How is this £1000 made up though?

If you received £105 has your weekly amount been reduced to £103? Is that how you are £1000 worse off (And before its mentioned I know £2 a week isnt £1000pa - just asking for an indication of the means of depriving £1000pa). If not then please explain to me how you are actually worse off than you were before.

I've no love for people that sit on Income Related benefits all their lives so please dont think I am defending them. A large amount of them are loathesome people (Not saying that I am not loathesome).

sunnyone

NASA wrote: »

How is this £1000 made up though?

If you received £105 has your weekly amount been reduced to £103? Is that how you are £1000 worse off (And before its mentioned I know £2 a week isnt £1000pa - just asking for an indication of the means of depriving £1000pa). If not then please explain to me how you are actually worse off than you were before.

I've no love for people that sit on Income Related benefits all their lives so please dont think I am defending them. A large amount of them are loathesome people (Not saying that I am not loathesome).

My additinal pension reduced by @ £3 pw from last year and the the whole of my additonal pension will disappear in 2 years.

The standard IB is £89 pw, mine is £105 pw and should have been £108 pw (£19 pw more) if the pension hadnt been reduced, its going down further this year, when it totally removed it will cost me @£1000 pa or £20 pw that I cant afford.

NASA_2

sunnyone wrote: »

My additinal pension reduced by @ £3 pw from last year and the the whole of my additonal pension will disappear in 2 years.

The standard IB is £89 pw, mine is £105 pw and should have been £108 pw (£19 pw more) if the pension hadnt been reduced, its going down further this year, when it totally removed it will cost me @£1000 pa or £20 pw that I cant afford.

So, let me understand this, you had been receiving £105 and will receive £105 still? So you havent actually had an overall reduction in benefit?

That, to me, means you are not worse off.