No recourse to public funds

Bryando

Hi,

Somebody I know claims ESA and PIP with their partner with a no course to public funds. Therefore friend is through the DWP as single. The PIP was just awarded and was refused the severe disability prem of ESA because of said partner.

Surely the DWP has not realised the partner has no course to public funds and therefore should be excluded from any decision?
Thanks

HappyMJ

Bryando wrote: »

Hi,

Somebody I know claims ESA and PIP with their partner with a no course to public funds. Therefore friend is through the DWP as single. The PIP was just awarded and was refused the severe disability prem of ESA because of said partner.

Surely the DWP has not realised the partner has no course to public funds and therefore should be excluded from any decision?
Thanks

You need to live alone to get severe disability premium.

Your friend lives with a partner. People who are subject to immigration control are taken into account in a benefits decision/calculation but don't get anything so it'll look like a single claim when it's actually a couples claim. If the partner with no recourse to public funds had income or capital exceeding the limits then the person claiming an income based benefit would get nothing.

marliepanda

Bryando wrote: »

Hi,

Somebody I know claims ESA and PIP with their partner with a no course to public funds. Therefore friend is through the DWP as single. The PIP was just awarded and was refused the severe disability prem of ESA because of said partner.

Surely the DWP has not realised the partner has no course to public funds and therefore should be excluded from any decision?
Thanks

The criteria is based on them living alone, nothing to do with money.

They don't live alone, they don't get it. They still exist as a person, whether they're entitled to money or not.

missapril75

HappyMJ wrote: »

....it'll look like a single claim when it's actually a couples claim. If the partner with no recourse to public funds had income or capital exceeding the limits then the person claiming an income based benefit would get nothing.

On the face of it, that one always seems odd, doesn't it. Allow nothing for the person subject to immigration control but consider their resources as available. A bit like having your cake and eating it.

But then imagine the other in the couple is Brad Pitt or Sandra Bullock. You wouldn't expect to pay benefits really. :rotfl:

anmarj

HappyMJ wrote: »

You need to live alone to get severe disability premium.

Your friend lives with a partner. People who are subject to immigration control are taken into account in a benefits decision/calculation but don't get anything so it'll look like a single claim when it's actually a couples claim. If the partner with no recourse to public funds had income or capital exceeding the limits then the person claiming an income based benefit would get nothing.

If they have no recourse to public funds, then why is their savings/income counted in the other's means tested benefit. The person claiming is treated soley as a single person and is based soley on their income alone, the partner could then earn thousands and there is nothing the DWP can do about it.

anmarj

Bryando wrote: »

Surely the DWP has not realised the partner has no course to public funds and therefore should be excluded from any decision?
Thanks

they are excluded but the problem is that your friend lives with someone who cannot be ignored for SDP purposes.

missapril75

anmarj wrote: »

If they have no recourse to public funds, then why is their savings/income counted in the other's means tested benefit. The person claiming is treated soley as a single person and is based soley on their income alone, the partner could then earn thousands and there is nothing the DWP can do about it.

Admittedly it was a little over 10 years ago I last had anything to do with this situation but the rule then was certainly that the person claiming was assessed as a single person when it came to the various allowances but that the partner's resources fell to be taken into account.

Now the reality was that the PFA usually had no resources so nothing was taken into account and so it may always have appeared resources of a PFA were disregarded when the reality was there weren't any to disregard.

Has the rule actually changed since my time or is it really that the person allowed to claim isn't actually paired up with a movie star or pop diva? :rotfl:

anmarj

I started in 2002, and not been any different, if the partner has no recourse to public fund then their income/savings totally ignored.

missapril75

anmarj wrote: »

I started in 2002, and not been any different

Okay, I was still there then but as a JSA advisor so something like that may have passed me by. Thanks.

I'd hate to be doing the job these days.

From later posts it appears to be into account for working age benefits but disregarded for pension credits.

TELLIT01

anmarj wrote: »

I started in 2002, and not been any different, if the partner has no recourse to public fund then their income/savings totally ignored.

Not what we were told, or how the DMs treated partner income. Partner income was taken into account when I worked on ESA and that was obviously after 2002.
It makes no sense to disregard the income of a partner under any Income Related situation. It would be no different to any couple stating they only want to claim IR benefit for one person because the other earns too much.

tomtontom

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Not what we were told, or how the DMs treated partner income. Partner income was taken into account when I worked on ESA and that was obviously after 2002.
It makes no sense to disregard the income of a partner under any Income Related situation. It would be no different to any couple stating they only want to claim IR benefit for one person because the other earns too much.

This is correct.

For ESA, IS and JSA the claimant will be entitled to the amount for a single claimant but the partner's income and capital are taken into account.

The rules are different for pension credit, which might be why anmarj is confused?