ESA (contrib) does this sound right?

spiff

Hi

My wife is employed and is currently off work sick. SSP has expired and she has just done a claim for contribution based ESA but has just had a letter turning her claim down as she has not paid enough NI contribs in the last 3 yrs ie one of the yrs, 08/09 is incomplete. 09/10 and 10/11 are complete yrs of level 1 contributions. DWP have told me that the last 3 tax yrs must be complete for NI contribs in order to qualify, does this sound right? if so why didn't they ask that prior to the claim as it was clearly never going to qualify? I've looked at the direct Gov website and it talks about "enough NI contribs" without stating what that means.

nannytone_2

i always thought it was 2 years but, regardless, it comes down to the same thing.

the years they look at for contributions based benefit today are 08/09 and 09/10 so if the shortfall is 08/09 she wouldnt qualify.

spiff

thanks nannytone, the most recent NI record looked at is 2 tax yrs ago 09/10 ? surely it's last tax year ie 10/11 isn't it?

chubbster_1

I always thought it looked at 2 years worth but not the most recent years worth so err atm it would look at 04/09-04/10 and 04/08 to 04/09, but not 04/10 to 04/11.

If she doesn't qualify for contribution based still apply for income based as even if she doesn't qualify to recieve any cash money because of your earnings, it may still pay her NI contributions towards pension etc.

SpiralingDown

that is correct, I have failled for that reason though they were paying NI contributions but that has now stopped cause I failed their medical.
I don't know why they don't just ask in the forms or on the phone I suppose that without all the unnecessary form checks they would have to pay off some of their staff. If only they would ask how many years the claimant had worked previously but then again some people don't qualify for NI contributions even if working. But at least we'd now weither to bother!

Muttleythefrog

I agree spiff it is confusing. I was asked in my intiial telephone application for ESA back in 2009 whether I wished to claim contrib based ESA... I asked 'should I... will I get it?'... I got no satisfactory reply and so I said yes.. I might as well try to. As I was always going to qualify for IR ESA in full that was probably a mistake because I've ended up getting a mix of both which has the grave potential to confuse people whom I try to prove I am getting IR ESA which carries with it significant 'benefits'' over contrib.

As per chubbster... Income related ESA is still an option.. even if only for the NI.

NASA_2

spiff wrote: »

Hi

My wife is employed and is currently off work sick. SSP has expired and she has just done a claim for contribution based ESA but has just had a letter turning her claim down as she has not paid enough NI contribs in the last 3 yrs ie one of the yrs, 08/09 is incomplete. 09/10 and 10/11 are complete yrs of level 1 contributions. DWP have told me that the last 3 tax yrs must be complete for NI contribs in order to qualify, does this sound right? if so why didn't they ask that prior to the claim as it was clearly never going to qualify? I've looked at the direct Gov website and it talks about "enough NI contribs" without stating what that means.

They dont ask because it would confuse more people than are confused by what you are confused by. Plus, they arent allowed to discourage anyone from making a claim.

It is the last two years though and not three. It was changed a year or two back.

nannytone_2

they use the last 2 complete tax years ... the reason they dont use 10/11 is because for some odd reason the tax years eligable, change in january and not in april when the tax year ends.

from january 2012, the applicable tax years will be 09/10 and 10/11, so if your wife is still sick then, she should be eligable to reapply.

spiff

Thanks NASA, bear with me on this one please! the current tax year being 11/12, so if it's last 2 years (09/10 and 10/11) why was she refused then do you think? or is it because they don't mean the last 2 yrs but 08/09 and 09/10 ? bizarre!

nannytone_2

the entitlement period changed in january 2011.... so before the end of the 10/11 tax year....so it cant be considered a 'full year'

NASA_2

spiff wrote: »

Thanks NASA, bear with me on this one please! the current tax year being 11/12, so if it's last 2 years (09/10 and 10/11) why was she refused then do you think? or is it because they don't mean the last 2 yrs but 08/09 and 09/10 ? bizarre!

As has been mentioned:

It is the last two full tax years before the benefit year in which the claim is treated as made.

If a claim is made on or after the first Sunday in January this year then it is the 2011 benefit year that the claim falls into. The last two full tax years are then the ones ending in April 2010 and April 2009. If a new claim is made after the first Sunday in January next year then it will be April 2011 and 2010.