UC, carer and WCA

Giantduck

Hiya, asking for a friend, she's unwell and currently receiving DLA middle rate care, higher rate mobility, and she and her partner are carers for each other. She's going to be changing to UC from IS due to them moving out of the area they currently live in.
It's going to reduce her income by £120 a month, but, if she were to be placed in the support group through a WCA she'd get more. Can she claim UC as a carer, and be referred to a WCA, and if she's put in the support group, get that instead? Or if she's a carer, will she just not be referred as if she's sick? Would she still have to supply sick notes even though she's unavailable for work anyway because she's a carer?
Does this make sense?
Thanks

tomtom256

She will get the higher of the two premiums, if put into Limited capability for work and work related activities or support group of old.

If she wanted to get a WCA she would have to provide fit notes to go down that route.

45002

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6056356/income-support-query

Alice_Holt

Giantduck wrote: »

Hiya, asking for a friend, she's unwell and currently receiving DLA middle rate care, higher rate mobility, and she and her partner are carers for each other. She's going to be changing to UC from IS...

Is her partner in receipt of PIP or DLA? (as you say they "are carers for each other").
If so what component and what rate?

(I am asking this as if this is the case it could mean they stay on legacy benefits rather than UC)

NedS

Giantduck wrote: »

Can she claim UC as a carer, and be referred to a WCA, and if she's put in the support group, get that instead? Or if she's a carer, will she just not be referred as if she's sick? Would she still have to supply sick notes even though she's unavailable for work anyway because she's a carer?
Does this make sense?
Thanks

Carers with LCW (or LCWRA) will not get both the carer element and the limited capability element. UC will pay which ever is higher, but not both. See:

https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Carers-with-limited-capability-for-work-Universal-Credit

A carer on UC is not required to look for work. A carer would only be required to submit Fit Notes if they wished to be considered for a WCA to be awarded LCW or LCWRA.

Hope that helps clarify for you

NedS

Giantduck wrote: »

... and she and her partner are carers for each other.

I recall that loophole has been closed on UC, but I can't find specific reference to the guidance for it. It is completely nonsensical that a person is not capable of caring for themselves (requires a carer) but is capable of caring for their partner for 35h/week, and vice versa. By definition, one element of that scenario has to be fraudulent as both can't possibly be true?

calcotti

NedS wrote: »

It is completely nonsensical that a person is not capable of caring for themselves (requires a carer) but is capable of caring for their partner for 35h/week, and vice versa. By definition, one element of that scenario has to be fraudulent as both can't possibly be true?

Two people can of course care for each other. People need care for different reasons. At a very simple level someone might not be able to reach their own feet to put their shoes on but might be able to help someone else put their shoes on. More fundamentally care includes much more than do physical tasks. Care can be simply being present to keep an eye on someone in case they have a fall and to be present to call for help.

NedS wrote: »

I recall that loophole has been closed on UC, but I can't find specific reference to the guidance for it.

From my above comments you can see that I don’t consider this a ‘loophole’. It is possible for both halves of a couple to get the carer element in UC for looking after each other. In practice it will often be the case that people requiring care are eligible for the LCWRA element and if someone is receiving the LCWRA element they will not be paid the carer element even if they are a carer.

tomtom256

NedS wrote: »

I recall that loophole has been closed on UC, but I can't find specific reference to the guidance for it. It is completely nonsensical that a person is not capable of caring for themselves (requires a carer) but is capable of caring for their partner for 35h/week, and vice versa. By definition, one element of that scenario has to be fraudulent as both can't possibly be true?

In benefit law, there is no definition of what constitutes caring.

As such caring can be just being there with someone or ringing them regulalry.

Until any such time that it is challenged in court and case law is created it will stay this way.