Contribution based ESA

TinoMclaren

Im curious why the contribution based rules for esa are based on the last two years?

Ive worked all my life (im 50 now) fully paid up all my ni contributions every year, except for the last 2 years when I was self employed and earning less than £6K so never paid any class 2.

Now im sick I cannot claim contribution based esa! I cant claim income based esa as I have a second house.

Why do the DWP only look at the last two full years and not you working life history? I feel let down by this as I was paying in quite a lot for many years and now I cant get any help in my time of need.

Thx

fryedslyce

You could try claiming PIP, it isn't income based.

TELLIT01

I can't answer the 'why do they only look at the last 2 years' but that is what they do. No amount of complaining will change that being the current situation.
If enough people who had worked all their lives complained something might change but I very much doubt it.
The benefit system is very much weighted on helping those who don't want to help themselves.

TinoMclaren

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I can't answer the 'why do they only look at the last 2 years' but that is what they do. No amount of complaining will change that being the current situation.
If enough people who had worked all their lives complained something might change but I very much doubt it.
The benefit system is very much weighted on helping those who don't want to help themselves.

Im not complaining, as I said im curious, I agree with everything you say but im just looking for some facts on the subject but if you dont know that's ok.

In all honesty I should know better to ask questions like this, because it is niche, and as such a lot of 'I dont know but....' answers are posted, which are appreciated but don't answer the question and some even a tad 'high horse' esque.

Thanks anyway

p00hsticks

NI stands for National Insurance.
So you could think of it along the lines of any other type of insurance (car, contents etc) - you can have been insuring your house for 50 years without needing to claim, but if you decide not to insure it this year and it then burns down, you get nothing.

TinoMclaren

p00hsticks wrote: »

NI stands for National Insurance.
So you could think of it along the lines of any other type of insurance (car, contents etc) - you can have been insuring your house for 50 years without needing to claim, but if you decide not to insure it this year and it then burns down, you get nothing.

I like your analogy.

We are also contributing to our state pensions via NI too, so they really should apply the same logic, although with insurance we are paying for a specific period (1 year) for a policy, and with NI we are making contributions towards our future needs.

I suspect its to keep the esa bill low.

TinoMclaren

Penitent wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but I suppose the obvious answer would be: to limit the number of people claiming contribution-based ESA. They don't want to pay people who have savings or a partner's income.

Yeah im thinking along those lines too, I will do a little more digging as two years seems arbitrary to me.

Ive since discovered I can pay my Class 2 NI voluntarily, I hope it's as simple as that but I doubt it!

antrobus

TinoMclaren wrote: »

Im curious why the contribution based rules for esa are based on the last two years? ...

I'd guess that the answer would be: because that's what it says in legislation.

Penitent wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but I suppose the obvious answer would be: to limit the number of people claiming contribution-based ESA. They don't want to pay people who have savings or a partner's income.

Contribution-based ESA is not means tested. Neither savings nor a partner's income signify.

TELLIT01

I didn't intend the answer to be 'high horsish' and apologise if it came across that way. When I worked on ESA I spoke to many people who had the same question and unfortunately had to give them the same answer. I mean it when I say the only way any change is likely to happen is if enough people complain, but even then I actually doubt that change will ever happen.
I had many potential claimants who would have been entitled to Conts based benefits if they had claimed from the outset of their illness but who didn't want to claim when they had their own savings. By the time their savings were depleted to the point that they felt they need help, they were no longer entitled to Conts based benefits because of the NI years used for the calculation.
They ended up thousands of pounds out of pocket because they tried to help themselves. Speak to any person who works on the benefits systems and most will say the same - in most instances it favours the workshy over those who try to look after themselves.
I'm certainly not claiming that anybody who claims income related benefit fits that category, but a hell of a lot do. I actually had one claim form come across my desk for a person in their last 30s. In the section for previous employment they had scrawled "Never worked!!!"

antrobus

TinoMclaren wrote: »

I like your analogy.

We are also contributing to our state pensions via NI too, so they really should apply the same logic, although with insurance we are paying for a specific period (1 year) for a policy, and with NI we are making contributions towards our future needs.

I suspect its to keep the esa bill low.

There is a National Insurance Fund. Cash flows in from contributions, and out in the form of benefits; mainly the state pension, but also ESA, JSA, and others. Over time, the two are supposed to balance.

TinoMclaren

antrobus wrote: »

I'd guess that the answer would be: because that's what it says in legislation.

With respect antrobus, as humans we are interested to know answers to questions and not to accept things as written. The mathematics/logic behind the two year figure is what im curious about, not that is says so in some legislation.

Agreed, Contribution based ESA is not means tested (income related ESA is means tested).