UC regs 85 & 86 (2 & 3) nominated carer - Joint claim - when you have a disabled child

ejc81

Can anyone on here clarify how reg 85 & 86 (2) and (3) applies/interacts if you have a disabled child?

Problem being you have other children that require collecting from school etc, but then you also have a disabled child that you need to be home for at specific times, therefore one parent needs to be main carer for 'normal children' and other parent needs to be main carer for child with SEN.

Anyone came across this before? I need to query it but can't find a solution anywhere in the regs….

calcotti

There will be a lead carer and the other parent is normally subject to full work search requirements but In the circumstances you describe the other parent is a relevant carer (regulation 85) and work search can be varied. See
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-your-family-quick-guide/universal-credit-further-information-for-families
”If you’re part of a couple but are not the lead carer, you will be expected to do everything you can to find work straight away.

If your circumstances mean you have to undertake some caring responsibilities, you would be treated as a ‘relevant carer’ and your work coach should take these responsibilities into account when setting job-related activities.”

ejc81

calcotti said:

There will be a lead carer and the other parent is normally subject to full work search requirements but In the circumstances you describe the other parent is a relevant carer (regulation 85) and work search can be varied. See
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-your-family-quick-guide/universal-credit-further-information-for-families
”If you’re part of a couple but are not the lead carer, you will be expected to do everything you can to find work straight away.

If your circumstances mean you have to undertake some caring responsibilities, you would be treated as a ‘relevant carer’ and your work coach should take these responsibilities into account when setting job-related activities.”

Thanks calcotti, but this is exactly the problem!!! 
"”If you’re part of a couple but are not the lead carer, you will be expected to do everything you can to find work straight away.
If your circumstances mean you have to undertake some caring responsibilities, you would be treated as a ‘relevant carer’ and your work coach should take these responsibilities into account when setting job-related activities.”

I've had this argument with 'a work coach' but they are still trying to sanction one of these parents for not being able to attend a 10 day course, due to childcare issues, which is a specific result of the disabled child issue.
Neither parent is not commited to finding work. They have both previously been working for a number of years (even with the diasable child and several other young children) and haven't claimed any benefits since 2015.

The problem I'm hitting is Reg 86 (3) " (3) The nomination applies to all the children, where there is more than one, for whom either of the joint claimants is responsible. There's nothing that I can find, to distinguish nominated carer, from  'caring for a severly disabled person' if that person happens to be one of the children as above.

It's really frustrating, as it is a genuine barrier to work at this point.

calcotti

I believe you are correct. UC doesn’t allow both parents to be treated as the responsible or lead carer even if one of the children is disabled. In this case the second parent is a 'relevant carer' and it it may be unreasonable to expect that person to attend a course depending on the hours. Unfortunately however agreeing what is reasonable is at the discretion of the work coach.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728459/admj2.pdf

"J2085 The expected hours of work for a claimant. who is a

1.1 relevant carer or

1.2.  responsible carer or

1.3.  responsible foster carer and

2. where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has reasonable prospects of finding paid work

are the number of hours less than 35 that the Secretary of State considers is compatible with those caring responsibilities"

i don’t know how you get round this. Obviously if a sanction is applied you can request an MR and then appeal if necessary but that isn’t a short term fix. What does the Claimant Commitment for the second carer say in respect of expected hours? Any sanction has to relate to a failure to comply with the Claimant Commitment.

ejc81

Second carer (Mum) has no work coach or commitments as youngest child is only 8 months old.
Stupidity of this this one is, Mum - no commitments was actually self-employed and employing dad for past X years until about 6 month ago. Claim for UC actually only occurred in January when funds from previous work had run completely dry.
Mum & dad have always worked, business ceased trading due to no fault of their own, they've always juggled childcare amongst themselves and paid providers full cost, whilst employed/ self-employed, not claimed a penny in childcare, should have been claiming CTC/WTC and receiving help with childcare, but not the sort of people that scream about what they're 'entitled to' so have just got on with it, and claimed nothing other than CB for last 5 years. Suddenly the sh@t has hit the fan so to speak resulting in a LA benefits 'advisor' assisting their joint UC claim.
They (the advisor) has assumed Mum shouldn't work due to under 1 yr old. But mum is also down as carer for 18 yr severely disabled son.
Dad is now down as 35 hours expected work. But in reality, due to original post above, dad is main carer for the 5 other school age kids. Both parents are actually desperately trying to get back into work & not happy at all with having to claim UC.
Add to that, mum wants to apply for NEA as she has a business plan and knows her stuff, she's completed all required paperwork etc, but all of that needs to be approved by a work coach, just mum doesn't have a work coach! So were going around in a circles on that as well! 

There's a major floor in the UC regs here where it comes to parents with disabled children. You can't be the main carer for multiple kids whilst also caring for a severely disabled person for 35 hours a week if those responsibilities clash. It's just not possible. If the disabled person in this instance wasn't a child of the claimant, then this problem wouldn't exist. Parent 1 would be main carer, Parent 2 would be caring for someone else. This needs addressed, ASAP.

calcotti

Something you may wish to highlight to your MP.

tomtom256

There as an easy fix for this, if your disabled child gets DLA mid or high rate care.

One of you declares themselves as the carer for disability reasons and the other as the primary carer, both will then be in no work related requirements, primary carer will then become work focused etc as the youngest reaches the relevant ages.

Hopefully makes sense.

Not ideal, but may be a quick fix for you.

calcotti

tomtom256 said:

There as an easy fix for this, if your disabled child gets DLA mid or high rate care.

One of you declares themselves as the carer for disability reasons and the other as the primary carer, both will then be in no work related requirements, primary carer will then become work focused etc as the youngest reaches the relevant ages.

Hopefully makes sense.

Not ideal, but may be a quick fix for you.

Tomtom, I think that is exactly what the OP was after. Looking at the guidance it wasn’t clear to me that you could do that. Seemed to me that when the disabled person is a child in this situation you could have a responsible carer and a relevant carer but not two responsible carers.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728459/admj2.pdf
”Relevant carer

J2034 A relevant carer means

1. a parent of a child who is not the responsible carer but does have caring

responsibilities for the child or

2. a person who has caring responsibilities for a person who has a

2.1 physical or

2.2 mental

impairment.

Responsible carer and responsible foster parent – couples and nominations

J2037 Joint claimants can nominate which one of them can be regarded as either the

1. responsible carer or

2. responsible foster parent.

J2038 At any one time, only one of the joint claimants can be nominated as a responsible carer or a responsible foster parent.”

J2039 Where there is more that one child, the nomination applies to all the children for whom either of the joint claimants is responsible.”

Are you are saying that the treatment as carer for a disabled child can be looked at completely separately such that the ‘relevant carer’ can be treated as a carer? Would be great if that is so.

calcotti

Thinking about this further. Whether someone is a responsible carer or relevant carer shouldn’t make a difference - both a responsible carer and a relevant carer are entitled to have their expected hours tailored to suit the extent of their caring responsibilities.

OP seems to be suffering from a work coach who is not recognising the caring needs sufficiently.

tomtom256

Yes both can be looked at seperately, the disabled carer, would get the carers premium as well and doesn't have to be the primary care giver for the other children.

I often get self-employed people to do this, so the MIF doesn't get imposed and cause them harship.

The disabled carer, for want of a better word, would be in no work related requirements as a "carer", as per old legacy rules and the primary carer, normal childcare,  would be in the regime based on the youngest childs age.

What you have put about the work coach not recognising the care needs is possibly true, however I don't recall seeing what you have linked in guidance and it looks to have come from ADM, which isn't something work caoches would use day to day.

Hopefully makes sense, but with both being called "carer" it's hard to explain.

calcotti

tomtom256 said:

.. I don't recall seeing what you have linked in guidance and it looks to have come from ADM, which isn't something work caoches would use day to day.

Indeed, I am aware of work coaches (and even case managers) who appear to have never heard of the ADM (which i find troubling)!
Very good to know that what you have described is possible.