Income support suspended

sulkisu

I am asking this on behalf of a family member.

She is lone parent with one child aged 2. She was working full-time until her daughter was born. Due to the breakdown of her relationship and the cost of childcare, she was unable to return to work as planned when her maternity leave ended and is currently claiming IS, CTC, HB. She is a civil servant so was able to take a career break, which basically means that she has a job to return to. She returns to work in September 2014.
She has just been informed that her IS has been suspended - that by taking a career break she has deprived herself of an income and is therefore not entitled to IS.

I am sure that this is wrong. My understanding is that as a lone parent of a child under 5, she is not required to work and can claim. The fact that her break is temporary shouldn't make a difference, or should it? If she resigns from her job she will definitely be entitled to claim IS until 2016 when DD turns 5, and then move to JSA while she tries to find employment. Does this sound right?

rogerblack

sulkisu wrote: »

IS, CTC, HB. She is a civil servant so was able to take a career break, which basically means that she has a job to return to. She returns to work in September 2014.
She has just been informed that her IS has been suspended - that by taking a career break she has deprived herself of an income and is therefore not entitled to IS.

I am not sure this is strictly correct - however, this doesn't help, as the reason it's not correct is that under IS rules, she's probably in remunerative employment, and not entitled to IS.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch20.pdf

20204 DMs should decide that a person is still in employment and not between jobs if
1. the contract of employment (which can be written or verbal) is still current or
2. the contract of employment ends at the beginning of what would be a period
of absence even if the contract continued (e.g. a school holiday) and it is
expected that the person will return to employment after that period because
2.1 there is an express agreement (written or verbal)
or
2.2 it is reasonable to assume that a long standing practice of re-
employment will continue

Any IS paid for the period is likely an overpayment, and may be recoverable.
And yes, if she resigns, she will be entitled to IS.

pmlindyloo

rogerblack wrote: »

I am not sure this is strictly correct - however, this doesn't help, as the reason it's not correct is that under IS rules, she's probably in remunerative employment, and not entitled to IS.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch20.pdf


Any IS paid for the period is likely an overpayment, and may be recoverable.
And yes, if she resigns, she will be entitled to IS.
[/FONT]

Well done for finding this - couldn't find anything


This reminds me that the OP's daughter may also have her HB and CT suspended because of this and also have an overpayment.

Not sure if there would be an opportunity to appeal the possible overpayments - might be worth getting some advice from a Benefit specialist at CAB?

sulkisu

Thanks for the replies. If it is correct, it does some very harsh especially as IS is usually paid for parental leave (which is basically the same thing albeit with a different name). If there is an overpayment I will definitely advise her to appeal that at least - when she made her application for benefits she made the position clear. She has also attended work focus interviews and again, her situation was discussed in full.

missapril75

I understand the part about being in employment but that doesn't necessarily mean no entitlement.

I'm thinking about the way we used to record claims where a woman was on maternity leave with maternity pay.

They were recorded as working - details of the employer input etc and the number of hours recorded was 00. (the normal number of hours normally worked would have resulted in them being excluded).

If their maternity pay was less than the usual Income Support level, then I/S was due and paid.

Now if someone was working part time - say 10 hours a week - and I/S was paid because the earnings obviously were low - and then that person decided to take a break and was then temporarily not working 10 hours a week, the I/S would not continue to be assessed as if they were still working. The details would still be there with 00 hours recorded.

So I'm thinking yes the employment is continuing, but there are no earnings nor any hours worked to exclude entitlement to I/S.

I can think of another situation of continuing employment: That of the striker.

Someone on strike has no benefit entitlement for themselves, but they are able to claim for dependents. Back in the 80s with the anti union legislation brought in, there was a further deduction from any award.

Now given the nature of the anti-union legislation brought in, none of that would have been necessary had continuing employment enabled benefit to be refused on the basis that it was continuing.

sammyjammy

It is part of what you agree to when you take a Carer Break in the Civil Service that you cannot claim out of work benefits. I appreciate her circumstances have changed since she started it but she has a responsibility to understand the conditions of her leave. There is no point in appealing an overpayment the guidelines are clear.

I would consider very carefully before handing in her notice, that's a big move, could she not return to work?

missapril75

sammyjammy wrote: »

It is part of what you agree to when you take a Carer Break in the Civil Service that you cannot claim out of work benefits.

Well that might make a difference then...although I'm not sure than an agreement between employee and employer takes precedence over benefit legislation.

It would be funny though, if all that anti union legislation was unnecessary if the expectation of returning to work trumped any possible entitlements. :rotfl:

Funny thing about career breaks in the civil service...when they were introduced, the circumstances where one might qualify were such that it was highly unlikely one could have afforded the break.

sammyjammy

missapril75 wrote: »

Well that might make a difference then...although I'm not sure than an agreement between employee and employer takes precedence over benefit legislation.

It would be funny though, if all that anti union legislation was unnecessary if the expectation of returning to work trumped any possible entitlements. :rotfl:

Funny thing about career breaks in the civil service...when they were introduced, the circumstances where one might qualify were such that it was highly unlikely one could have afforded the break.

You see you've made me think now, always dangerous! Because its a term of the Carer break then it may well be that the person would be dismissed rather than have to pay back the Income Support, another rule of the CB is that you cannot work during it. I have tried to find some guidance to no avail though.

sulkisu

sammyjammy wrote: »

It is part of what you agree to when you take a Carer Break in the Civil Service that you cannot claim out of work benefits. I appreciate her circumstances have changed since she started it but she has a responsibility to understand the conditions of her leave. There is no point in appealing an overpayment the guidelines are clear.

I would consider very carefully before handing in her notice, that's a big move, could she not return to work?

We both work in the same Government department and having read the career break guidelines, I can see nothing stated about not claiming out of work benefits. It does say that ordinarily a person who chooses to take unpaid leave probably will not qualify for out of work benefits, except in exceptional circumstances - and gives lone parents and carers as examples of possible exceptions. I can understand an employer stipulating that you cannot take another job (which it does), but not sure that they can forbid an employee from claiming benefits that they are rightfully entitled to.

Having said that, when she finally spoke to DWP this afternoon, they have said that a letter is on its way, which is basically asking her to confirm that she has stopped work to care for her daughter and for no other reason. The person that she spoke to seemed genuinely surprised that her IS had been suspended. My cousin asked about the continuity of employment point which was raised earlier in this thread, but was told that this shouldn't be a factor as they pay IS to mothers taking additional maternity leave when they are clearly still employed.

I guess she will just have to wait and see, but I will update on the outcome.

missapril75

sammyjammy wrote: »

You see you've made me think now, always dangerous! Because its a term of the Carer break then it may well be that the person would be dismissed rather than have to pay back the Income Support.

Perhaps a bit harsh, but maybe subject to something. It would look a bit embarrassing, wouldn't it, if someone took a career break from a government department only to claim government benefits - especially if the DWP was the employer.

On the other hand very many civil servants - especially in DWP - are already qualifying for low income benefits!! That doesn't seem to embarrass the government.

sulkisu wrote: »

We both work in the same Government department and having read the career break guidelines, I can see nothing stated about not claiming out of work benefits.

It may vary from dept to dept - many things do these days.

I can understand an employer stipulating that you cannot take another job (which it does), but not sure that they can forbid an employee from claiming benefits that they are rightfully entitled to.

One of the reasons to take a career break is, of course, to care for someone. If that means they met the carer's allowance conditions, I doubt an employer could prevent a claim.

I wonder if a gov dept discourages it but may not be in a position to prevent it.

Perhaps take advice from the PCS rep?

princessdon

Many parents I work with claim IS on a career break.