Rules about minimum amount needed to live?

Lally

Are there any rules about the minimum amount of income you need to live?

My father is going to a tribunal as he is disputing an alleged overpayment of pension credit. They want him to repay it at £49 a week, which is a sizeable chunk of his income.

He is putting together an account of his income and expenditure. Do you think they will reduce the repayment amount at all?

Caz3121

for a single person it is around £72 and for a couple around £110, this is after housing costs (as in rent/mortgage - not bills)

Morglin

The amount for those over pension age is higher than above, but they usually have a set formulae for repayments, so the amount should be affordable.

Lin

pmlindyloo

Useful website:

http://www.nhs.uk/CarersDirect/moneyandlegal/otherbenefits/Pages/pension-credit-challenges.aspx

tinkledom

Lally wrote: »

Are there any rules about the minimum amount of income you need to live?

My father is going to a tribunal as he is disputing an alleged overpayment of pension credit. They want him to repay it at £49 a week, which is a sizeable chunk of his income.

He is putting together an account of his income and expenditure. Do you think they will reduce the repayment amount at all?

They can and will, unless you can show extreme hardship, deduct 30% of the highest paying benefit that he receives. This will include his State Pension.


However if he is in receipt of a means tested benefit I believe that the maximum that they can take is about £10.50 a week.

cattermole

I think there would be a good legal argument that they cannot take someone below the level the Government says they need to live on.

Lin is correct the amount is adjusted by age.

rogerblack

cattermole wrote: »

I think there would be a good legal argument that they cannot take someone below the level the Government says they need to live on.

You can argue all you like - however this isn't how it works.

The amount you need to live on - your 'applicable amount' - is simply varied (in some cases all the way down to zero).

In almost all cases, the wrong way to go about attempting to get a sanction or similar decision overturned is 'I should get more money'.
It's 'these are the specific reasons according to your rules I should be entitled to more money'.

tinkledom

cattermole wrote: »

I think there would be a good legal argument that they cannot take someone below the level the Government says they need to live on.

Lin is correct the amount is adjusted by age.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The DWP debt recovery department will automatically arrange for 30% to be deducted from the highest paying benefit. My wife had an underpayment going back to 1997 and last year they arranged without any reference to her, to start taking 1/3rd of her State Pension off her.


It was only when I complained on her behalf that she was named on a GPC claim that they reduced it to, I think, £10.50 a week instead of the £19.80 they originally wanted. That is the minimum that they will go down to.

cattermole

rogerblack wrote: »

You can argue all you like - however this isn't how it works.

The amount you need to live on - your 'applicable amount' - is simply varied (in some cases all the way down to zero).

In almost all cases, the wrong way to go about attempting to get a sanction or similar decision overturned is 'I should get more money'.
It's 'these are the specific reasons according to your rules I should be entitled to more money'.

Has it been challenged legally then?

I wasn't implying it shouldn't be paid back just the amount/rate at which is was paid back at.

Most courts don't order payment back at an amount that is unaffordable was the point I was making. But I'm sure you are right that is what they do and how it currently works.

I tend to work on the premise with the DWP just because they do something doesn't always make it legally unchallengeable.

rogerblack

cattermole wrote: »

Has it been challenged legally then?<snip>
I tend to work on the premise with the DWP just because they do something doesn't always make it legally unchallengeable.

Quite.
However - you need to start from a meaningful basis.
The 'applicable amount' is not defined anywhere in law as the minimum amount you need to live on.
The phrase 'the law states this is the minimum amount you need to live on' - or similar were indeed used - however - as you mention above - this was just the DWPs phrasing in some letters.
It really meant 'You are eligible for a payment of X'.

This could change due to sanctions, disqualification or personal circumstances.
There was never any legislative meaning beyond that.

'Challenge in court' - you cannot challenge in general the amount of benefit you get.
You can only challenge the way it was calculated.

Recovery rate is one decision a tribunal can make.

Lally

Thanks all. Sorry for not coming back sooner, I set up email notifications for replies, and didn't actually get any. I just checked back by chance. Will look into all the info provided, thank you