Qualifying years for contributions based benefits

newbiegirl

Hi, my partner has claimed for contributions based ESA (he injured himself in a bike accident a couple of weeks ago and is likely to be off his (self-employed) work for 2 months). we won't get income based because my income is judged 'too high' (around £15k/yr).

But his claim has been refused because the DWP have said he's not paid enough NI in the correct tax years, which they say are 2013/4 and 2014/5.

His situation is that he was out of work in 2013 and went back to work in November 2014, and has worked (and paid his NI self employed contributions) ever since, til he had his accident 2 weeks ago.

My understanding is that for contributions based ESA you have to have paid NI for 6 months out of the last 2 complete tax years (as well as having a complete record of NI from you were signing on, which he does). He only worked and paid 5 months for 2014/5, but paid 12 months NI contributions for the tax year 2015/2016, so I don't understand why they haven't taken that as a qualifying year - though I did read something really confusing about benefit years starting at a different time (start of Jan) to tax years (start of April), is it something to do with that?

If it IS to do with that, given that he's likely to be off work for the whole of January and maybe some of Feb, should he claim again at the start of January, would that make a difference? And should I assume that we have to put in a new claim, they won't do anything automatically, right?

Thanks in advance for help!

TELLIT01

You will have to put in a new claim, and ESA will have to ensure that it is treated as NOT linking to the original claim which has been disallowed. It is possible but requires manual intervention at the processing centre.

newbiegirl

Thank you so much - that's really helpful.

Can I just clarify, is it definitely correct, that he isn't eligible for contributions based benefits in December 2016, if his first recent year of full NI contributions is year ending April 2016?

Assuming that is the case, then do i understand the benefit year rule correctly, that he can make a new claim starting the first day the DWP opens after sun 1st jan 2017?

Lastly, is there a way of *ensuring* the claims aren't linked, aside from just saying that to the person who answers the phone (i'm not sure how clued up they are?).

Mersey_2

As above - and yes, you're right re the DWP benefit year being Jan rather than the HMRC tax year starting April.

newbiegirl

thank you - this board is amazing! annoying that we won't get benefits for 3 weeks but at least it sounds like we will get some, so long as we can negotiate the admin. so annoying that the DWP doesn't say this in its letter, but i guess that would mean they were actually being helpful/treating cases as individuals, rather than just trying to deny everyone any help/computer says no!

anmarj

The letters have to be worded that way due to legal process, but the benefit processes do not see any of the letters that are computer generated. They are printed off site and posted from there, unless the agent is sending a letter directly to the claimant, and even then they can only use format that has been approved.

Suggestions are put forward, but are more than often knocked back for cost.

TELLIT01

newbiegirl wrote: »

thank you - this board is amazing! annoying that we won't get benefits for 3 weeks but at least it sounds like we will get some, so long as we can negotiate the admin. so annoying that the DWP doesn't say this in its letter, but i guess that would mean they were actually being helpful/treating cases as individuals, rather than just trying to deny everyone any help/computer says no!

The systems can't provide information on a hypothetical future situation, although I accept that's of no comfort to you. As has been said, the letters are system generated and are often confusing enough as they are. To try to incorporate every conceivable variant would be an impossibility.
In some instances more experienced processing staff might spot the potential for a future claim and advise accordingly. However, such is the pressure on staff simply to get the required number of claims processed per day, that there is little scope to 'go the extra mile' which many staff would love to do.