Who's correct. Me or the DWP?

blueoceans1971

Hi there,

Hoping one of you educated lot will know the answer to this, ideally one of the moderators who know the system inside out.

I split up from my ex in November 2018, 15 months ago. We were on joint income support until then.

Both myself and my ex were both receiving joint sdp, as I was, and still am, receiving enhanced pip for both care/mobility, and my ex was, and still is receiving dla middle care/higher mobility as she has ms.

I realised at the time when we split up I was possibly saying goodbye to sdp, and its transitional protection, but as far as I've been led to believe, the law changed twice in the last year, first of all in January last year, where any couples, who were both disabled, and receiving sdp, would be able to continue on their legacy benefit, all be it a single claim for each person. And then in July 2019, Theresa May brought in a new law that meant anyone who had been wrongly guided towards universal credit before January of last year, would be re-compensated, and have their sdp applied, and back dated.

I believe this also covers couples who have separated, but were both disabled like me and my ex are. And receiving higher sdp each on our previous benefit.

Am I right in what I'm saying, or have I got this completely wrong?

Thanks in advance for your help with this, and could I possibly ask that people only comment, and give me advice that are 100% sure in what they are saying, and explaining.

This is quite complicated, and the last thing I need is some know it all, who actually doesn't have a clue what there talking about.

Only the best advice please. Thank you.

calcotti

Who was the claimant for the Income Support? If it was your wife then I think you do not benefit from SDP protection through IS, only your wife would. My understanding is that only the legacy benefit claimant gets the protection, not the additional partner. It is legally incorrect to say that you both received the SDP. Only one of you was receiving Income Support although the amount of IS paid included amounts for the partner.

Were you also claiming Housing Benefit? If so who was the lead claimant for the HB?

Can you clarify also - when you split in November 2018 did you move on to Universal Credit? I infer that is what happened.

blueoceans1971

Hi thanks for replying Calcotti.

So if a disabled couple on joint income support, in the man's name were to split up tomorrow, and then claim individual income support, what your saying is the man would be able to get sdp applied, but the woman wouldn't because she wasn't the main person on the claim....

How can that be right?

There going to penalise the 2nd person on the claim, even though they receive higher sdp as well.....

I think your way off the mark with this one, and I did ask politely for people who know the system inside out, not people who kind of know.

No disrespect intended, but if you don't even know something simple like this, please do not comment any more, and leave it to others please.

Thank you.


p.s. I am, and have been since the 20 November 2018, been on universal credit, and got my lcwra award 364 days later on 19 November 2019. Shocking how long it took.

My ex was on my joint income support claim until 20 November 2018, then moved over to universal credit also on the 20 November 2018, and her lcwra was applied in March of last year, much quicker than me.

Up until today, I was as far I was concerned, on a sdp waiting list, as is also my ex.

There now saying that as far as they are concerned, neither me, nor my ex meet the criteria for backdated sdp, cos we were a couple.

I have now pointed them in the direction of this:


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/tp-ar-final-14.06.18.pdf

and this:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111178317

Both of these links, especially the 2nd one which was implemented in law back in July, seem to indicate that no longer will disabled couples, who have split up, and who both received higher sdp premiums, be penalised for splitting up, and will in fact received backdated sdp, and more importantly, transitional protection for the forseeable.

I'm 99% sure in what I'm saying, and found out, I just need this confirmed, and possibly where any information could be provided, that could help me, would be much appreciated.

Thanks again for taking an interest.

calcotti

I am not saying it’s (morally) right but it is my understanding of the law.

In your scenario the husband is claiming Income Support. The wife is not claiming Income Support, she is supported by her husband. If that couple splits the husband can continue to receive Income Support (if they still meet the qualifying conditions) regardless of whether or not they have an SDP. The wife has no prior entitlement to benefit and therefore has to claim UC. The exception would be if there is a Housing Benefit claim in her name which includes an SDP in which case she would currently be prevented from claiming UC. However SDP in HB does not give rise to retrospective transitional protection for those who have already moved to UC.

I’m going to check through some other sources and will post back if I find more information.

calcotti

See https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/resources/article/sdp-gateway

ENTITLEMENT TO AN EXISTING BENEFIT
Usually, ‘entitlement’ to a benefit depends on a claim for it having been made (or being treated as having been made). The SDP gateway is closed (ie, so as to prevent a new claim for UC) to people who were ‘entitled’ to an award of an existing benefit that includes an SDP. This will not be a problem for legacy benefits claimed jointly (such as some income-based JSA awards), as here both members of the couple will be claimants.

However, there will be situations in which a legacy benefit is (formally) claimed by just one member of a couple for her/himself and her/his partner (such as income-related ESA, IS, HB, and some income-based JSA awards). In these situations only the claimant (not her/his partner) will have been entitled to an award that includes an SDP.

In your case I am not clear why you were moved from IS to UC as the existing IS claim could simply have been converted to a single claim.

What were your living arrangements after you separated. Were you living alone?

blueoceans1971

Hi Calcotti,

Much appreciated. I actually sent a p.s. in the last message to you, explaining a wee bit more about my situation.

Hope this helps.

Thank you.

blueoceans1971

Hi Calcotti,

You live and learn. I say it all the time.

Well, your information, though correct at the time, is dated.

The information here is more up to date. The court case happened at the end of May, and the law was brought in on July, 2 and 4 months after the article you have sent over to me.


I have now pointed the dwp in the direction of this:


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/tp-ar-final-14.06.18.pdf

and this:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111178317

Speaking to their so called specialist team, and they didn't have a clue about the above, I was explaining to them government law that is directly to do with the dwp.

This is the reason I'm feeling so much frustration, I have in the past had various disagreements with the dwp, and every single time I've been correct, and they have been wrong. And they have eventually came to the correct decision, and put in place what they should have in the first place. And I'm having to explain parts of the benefit system to staff that don't have a clue.

Last 6 years, there's been various times I've been told over and over again that I'm wrong, and I don't know what I'm talking about, and every single tie I've been right, and they've eventually dealt with my claim properly.

And I just get the feeling

calcotti

This article is also helpful https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/resources/article/transitional-sdp-amount

(I don’t appear to have any private messages)

General_Grant

calcotti wrote: »

This article is also helpful https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/resources/article/transitional-sdp-amount

(I don’t appear to have any private messages)

I think blueoceans1971 was referring to a PS (Post Script) in post #3 rather than having sent you a PM.

calcotti

blueoceans1971 wrote: »

Well, your information, though correct at the time, is dated.
[/URL]

Although the article preceded the regulations tabled in July I quoted it because it explains clearly the legal position regarding couples claiming certain means tested legacy benefits where only one person is treated as entitled to the benefit.

My interpretation is that because you were the IS claimant if, since you split, you have continued to satisfy the conditions for an SDP had your IS been allowed to continue then you should get the relevant SDP compensation amount added to your UC (provided your circumstances have not subsequently changed in such a way as to end the payment). However because your wife was not the one claiming the IS she is not entitled to SDP compensation.

However the rules are, as you rightly say, difficult to understand and others may have a different interpretation,

poppy12345

calcotti wrote: »

However because your wife was not the one claiming the IS she is not entitled to SDP compensation.

Completely agree with this. Great advice, as always calcotti.