Universal credit and early Christmas wages

abbiesmom

Blatchford wrote: »

Sorry but could I also please clarify a couple of points?

In March you posted about buying property. In that thread you spoke about your "ex" and said you didn't want him to get control - how does a dead " ex" get control? You also said that your childcare costs would reduce by HALF in September, from over £900 a month to just over £400. Did that happen? Can you explain how your dead ex is exerting control over anything?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5980275/mortgage-possible

The house purchase didn't go ahead as I couldn't get a mortgage. The other parent died in September so whilst my childcare payments did reduce it was not by as much hoped as he is no longer able to have them for part of the time required and I no longer get the maintenance payments so it's been a double hit.

I dont want handouts and am not looking for any. I have strived since working age to be self sufficient and work for what I have but sadly life never goes as planned. I'm looking for guidance on what I can do to help me until February due to the double pay for this assessment period which looking at the Johnson ruling that another poster referred to it shouldn't be considered as 2 payments as it is clear that the 2nd payment is for the following assessment period.

There is nothing that I can do to enforce the large multi national company I work for to follow guidance from a government office in another country and even if I could it's too late now and that damage is already done.

If anybody has any suggestions I will gladly consider them, I'll aim to get my DDs moved on Monday when my creditors are back open but cant see a way forward right now, but with all my wage going to pay rent, childcare, electric, council tax, gas and water I dont see where money for food or other bills will come from.

calcotti

Unfortunately DWP have not implemented the Johnsons case because they have appealed it and the appeal will not be heard until some time next year.

One point that you may have realised if you have looked at that case is that this is not just about your cash flow. You will lose some money as a result of this because in the month in which no wages are taken into account you will not get the benefit of the Work Allowance. In itself this would cost you about £192. The loss of benefit may be greater than this because obviously your UC in that zero earnings month cannot go above your maximum amount.

You said your maximum UC was £1900 with £1100 normally paid. So over 3 normal months you would get £3,300. With one nil month, a maximum month and a zero month you only get £3,000 so you are permanently £300 down. I suggest you look at your actual amounts so that you can try and plan accordingly.

The official DWP response is along the lines that it all works out in the end but this isn’t really true.

Good luck to you working through this.

abbiesmom

Blatchford wrote: »

I'm sorry that your partner died. Yes, I am. But no, I still don't think that working deserves a medal. It had been pointed out to you by a number of people that the employer is able to make returns that reflect real pay dates. They didn't. That is their choice. Universal credit didn't make that choice for them. Neither did the people you had a go at on here. So it's the employers system that is broken in this case. That's who you need to take it up with.

I'm sorry there's no bereavement support available. Presumably it's the systems fault that you didn't get married, or take out insurances for the possible eventuality of a parent/ partner dying. You see, sympathy doesn't go very far. I know that because my husband died before the children were grown ups. And I worked full time. But we also made sure that we planned for such impossible eventualities because we understood that we couldn't depend on benefits or other people to bail us out; and we were both union members so that when our employer screwed up they were held accountable.

I'm not having a go because your are on benefits. Personally, I don't think our benefits system serves people who need it well. But (a) in this case it isn't the system that's wrong, and (b) the benefits system was never designed to support people for ever. It was a temporary measure to help people get back on their feet in the short term, and the expectation was always that you planned for the long term. I'm sorry that you didn't understand that or plan for the long term, but that was your choice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But why blame everyone and everything for that choice?

I've requested a mandatory reconsideration but not holding out much hope, as the ruling hasn't been successfully appealed would this not currently take precedence in law?

I've managed to move just 2 of my direct debits due tomorrow as the other companies are not back in work until tomorrow so it will be too late to arrange anything with those, also praying my landlord will understand that I cant meet the rent until end of the month when I get my salary.

I've been through our cupboards and freezer and think we can just about manage for a little over a week but have £30 cash left to last us until 31 January which I took out of my account today so that it wouldn't get sucked up in fees. We're on prepay for our electric and that's a worry as we hit the emergency button today so will need to top that up and put fuel in car tomorrow to get to work.

Local MP is meant to be contacting me soon too but that's not going to help in the short term but hopefully will be on board for long term changes.

I've really never ever felt this unhopeful but if I can get through the next month I should be ok as I've checked and Feb 28th is a weekday so no early payment that month messing up my next payment!

I'll keep you updated how the MR goes.

huckster

As the matter is subject to appeal at the Supreme Court, there is not a precedent in force. The legislation passed by Parliament still applies, which allows for all earnings reported within an assessment period to be part of the calculation.

It is pretty unlikely that a Decision Maker is going to change the way earnings have been treated. The Decision Maker is deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State and there does not seem to be any reasons in your posts to this thread, that would be significant enough. Normally they are looking for errors, but your employers have reported earnings correctly ?

huckster

You could argue that foreign employers, would not have been given HMRC guidance and that given HMRC should have been aware that the source of earnings was foreign, that this should have been considered, when HMRC designed the process for issuing guidance. e.g. they could have warned taxpayers in receipt of foreign earnings to have contacted their employers, to see what could have been done

abbiesmom

Good news!!! Just had a message in my journal to confirm that a manual adjustment would be made.:j

calcotti

abbiesmom wrote: »

Good news!!! Just had a message in my journal to confirm that a manual adjustment would be made.:j

Result - well done.