Shielding Carer

Becles

unholyangel said:

Becles said:

ConcernedCarer said:

I cant manage on UC, I privately rent. This situation is really worrying me?
As far as I can understand I've been told to shield as I am at risk via an NHS letter. Yet I cant afford to?
Its my employers choice to furlough me?

That's the position I am in. 

I'm shielding but not entitled to furlough. My household income has been reduced severely, so I'm facing serious financial difficulties. I have the choice of dealing with a financial mess or going back to work and risking my health. I've paid my tax and NI like everyone else and I'm frustrated that I'm not getting as much help as others are.

But you are. You should be getting SSP - which is the help someone is entitled to under law when they are unable to attend work for health related reasons. 

Some people have lost their jobs. Some have been furloughed without pay. Some are still receiving their wages (or a % of it) - but that is a payment due to be paid to them under their contract of employment, not "help". 

I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, but my sympathy isn't going to pay your bills and I genuinely cannot think of any grounds you would have to challenge your employer unless they were furloughing other people but were not furloughing you due to you shielding. 

Unfortunately I suspect the government made a fag packet promise to try and stop the economy from absolutely tanking, without thinking of the wider impact or how it would work in practice. Like in the triple dip recession, they bailed out the banks and had some help in place for businesses but didn't offer help to the millions who suddenly found themselves out of work or on reduced hours/pay. They were left with our woefully inadequate benefits system. And the issue with the benefits system is that it is designed to provide bare minimum. It's not supposed to provide a comfortable standard of living (as a paying job would) to discourage people from being on it any longer than absolutely necessary. Now we tend to have a lot more committed payments to make - car lease/finance, mobile phone contracts, tv/broadband/landline contracts, car & home insurance, credit cards, gym contracts etc. So it can be a lot harder to manage, particularly if you don't have a rainy day fund. 

I've got a SSP1 form so I have to claim ESA. I have applied but it's going to take 20+ days to hear if I have it.

I did have a rainy day fund. Unfortunately I had two major operations in under a year so I had to use my savings to live on then. This is my third "rainy day" in a short space of time. 

I'm not coping well with this at all  

calcotti

unholyangel said:.... You should be getting SSP - which is the help someone is entitled to under law when they are unable to attend work for health related reasons. 

I don't believe that someone is entitled to SSP purely on the grounds that they are shielding. I know others take a different view. Some employers seem to be paying SSP anyway. If it is a problem a way round it may be to get a Fit Note in respect of the underlying health condition if GP will oblige.

unholyangel

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:.... You should be getting SSP - which is the help someone is entitled to under law when they are unable to attend work for health related reasons. 

I don't believe that someone is entitled to SSP purely on the grounds that they are shielding. I know others take a different view. Some employers seem to be paying SSP anyway. If it is a problem a way round it may be to get a Fit Note in respect of the underlying health condition if GP will oblige.

I've heard people say shielding employees aren't covered by the amendment to SSP regs.  

(i)isolating himself from other people in such a manner as to prevent infection or contamination with coronavirus disease, in accordance with guidance published by Public Health England, NHS National Services Scotland(2) or Public Health Wales(3) and effective on 12th March 2020

The prevent infection part is referring to shielding employees. Those who are isolating because they or someone in their household have symptoms are doing so to prevent contanimation (because they're already potentially infected). Both (shielding & isolating) are in line with the guidance published by the relevant health bodies. 

onwards&upwards

calcotti said:

onwards&upwards said: UC will provide help with your rent and council tax assuming you don’t have savings or a partner still earning?

UC does not provide help with Council Tax. Council Tax Reduction is claimed separately from your local authority.

My mistake, apologies

calcotti

unholyangel said: The prevent infection part is referring to shielding employees. Those who are isolating because they or someone in their household have symptoms are doing so to prevent contanimation (because they're already potentially infected). Both (shielding & isolating) are in line with the guidance published by the relevant health bodies. 

I follow the argument and want to to be correct but I think unfortunately I think the government narrative on this is confused.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees says

Sick pay: You can get £94.25 per week Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) if you’re too ill to work. It’s paid by your employer for up to 28 weeks.
If you are staying at home because of COVID-19 you can now claim SSP. This includes individuals who are caring for people in the same household and therefore have been advised to do a household quarantine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/guidance-for-employers-and-businesses-on-coronavirus-covid-19#sick-pay

Sick pay: Those who follow advice to stay at home and who cannot work as a result will be eligible for statutory sick pay (SSP), even if they are not themselves sick.

This appears unambiguous, however the government has used three phrases self-isolation, social distancing and shielding. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection. This guidance on isolation clearly refers to periods of 7 to 14 days.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19 This guidance discusses shielding (which is not described as isolation - bit is of course advice to stay at home.
and then there is
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-on-social-distancing-and-for-vulnerable-people/guidance-on-social-distancing-for-everyone-in-the-uk-and-protecting-older-people-and-vulnerable-adults
The question is whether isolating encompasses shielding. I don't consider the government have made this clear.

If the government intended employers to pay SSP for 12 weeks of shielding it is not logical for them to have limited the support for employers paying SSP to two weeks.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-back-statutory-sick-pay-paid-to-employees-due-to-coronavirus-covid-19

The Coronavirus Statutory Sick Pay Rebate Scheme will repay employers the current rate of SSP that they pay to current or former employees for periods of sickness starting on or after 13 March 2020.
..
The repayment will cover up to 2 weeks starting from the first day of sickness, if an employee is unable to work because they either:
     have coronavirus
     cannot work because they are self-isolating at home

The 2 weeks is of course consistent with self-isolating.

Becles

It was explained to me as SSP is paid if you have C19 or live with someone who does, because someone is genuinely sick.

I was told no SSP for shielding as I'm not actually sick. Therefore I was given a SSP1 form and told to claim ESA which is £73 instead of £94 a week.

calcotti

Becles said: It was explained to me as SSP is paid if you have C19 or live with someone who does, because someone is genuinely sick.

That's my reading.

Becles said: I was told no SSP for shielding as I'm not actually sick. Therefore I was given a SSP1 form and told to claim ESA which is £73 instead of £94 a week.

Interesting. What box did your employer tick as the reason they couldn't pay SSP? If you are not sick or treated as sick you can't claim ESA either.

calcotti

Interesting, I note that the guidance on sickness and furloughing has changed. It originally said that an employee that was sick or self isolating was entitled to SSP and could not be furloughed. It's now changed and appears to say that the employer can choose whether to pay SSP or furlough them (but must not pay less than SSP if they are sick or self-isolating).
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee is self-isolating or on sick leave
If your employee is on sick leave or self-isolating as a result of Coronavirus, they’ll be able to get Statutory Sick Pay, subject to other eligibility conditions applying. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is not intended for short-term absences from work due to sickness, and there is a 3 week minimum furlough period.
Short term illness/ self-isolation should not be a consideration in deciding whether to furlough an employee. If, however, employers want to furlough employees for business reasons and they are currently off sick, they are eligible to do so, as with other employees. In these cases, the employee should no longer receive sick pay and would be classified as a furloughed employee.
Employers are also entitled to furlough employees who are being shielded or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees. You can claim back from both the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the SSP rebate scheme for the same employee but not for the same period of time. When an employee is on furlough, you can only reclaim expenditure through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, and not the SSP rebate scheme. If a non-furloughed employee becomes ill, needs to self-isolate or be shielded, then you might qualify for the SSP rebate scheme, enabling you to claim up to two weeks of SSP per employee.

As always it's not, in my opinion, quite as clear as it could be.

trixie73

Where I work (care setting), all those who have received a 12 week sheilding letter have all been placed on furlough with 80% pay. I didn't think this could be done when there is no shortage of work, infact quite the opposite. 

unholyangel

calcotti said:

unholyangel said: The prevent infection part is referring to shielding employees. Those who are isolating because they or someone in their household have symptoms are doing so to prevent contanimation (because they're already potentially infected). Both (shielding & isolating) are in line with the guidance published by the relevant health bodies. 

I follow the argument and want to to be correct but I think unfortunately I think the government narrative on this is confused.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/covid-19-guidance-for-employees says

Sick pay: You can get £94.25 per week Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) if you’re too ill to work. It’s paid by your employer for up to 28 weeks.
If you are staying at home because of COVID-19 you can now claim SSP. This includes individuals who are caring for people in the same household and therefore have been advised to do a household quarantine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-employers-and-businesses-about-covid-19/guidance-for-employers-and-businesses-on-coronavirus-covid-19#sick-pay

Sick pay: Those who follow advice to stay at home and who cannot work as a result will be eligible for statutory sick pay (SSP), even if they are not themselves sick.

This appears unambiguous, however the government has used three phrases self-isolation, social distancing and shielding. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection. This guidance on isolation clearly refers to periods of 7 to 14 days.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19 This guidance discusses shielding (which is not described as isolation - bit is of course advice to stay at home.
and then there is
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-on-social-distancing-and-for-vulnerable-people/guidance-on-social-distancing-for-everyone-in-the-uk-and-protecting-older-people-and-vulnerable-adults
The question is whether isolating encompasses shielding. I don't consider the government have made this clear.

If the government intended employers to pay SSP for 12 weeks of shielding it is not logical for them to have limited the support for employers paying SSP to two weeks.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-back-statutory-sick-pay-paid-to-employees-due-to-coronavirus-covid-19

The Coronavirus Statutory Sick Pay Rebate Scheme will repay employers the current rate of SSP that they pay to current or former employees for periods of sickness starting on or after 13 March 2020.
..
The repayment will cover up to 2 weeks starting from the first day of sickness, if an employee is unable to work because they either:
     have coronavirus
     cannot work because they are self-isolating at home

The 2 weeks is of course consistent with self-isolating.

Well look at it this way, if they were only intending to cover those isolating due to showing symptoms, why wouldn't they make that the qualifying criteria (someone in the household having symptoms) rather than those who are isolating to prevent infection or contamination with coronavirus. 

I (although I appreciate it's just my personal opinion) would say it is clear, as shielding is a specfic type of isolation - all shielding is isolating but not all isolating is shielding. Plus the distinction between preventing infection against preventing contamination - if it was only meant to cover those with symptoms it would only have to say contamination. 

I'd say the new wording of the SSP regs could be broken down into two points:
1) are you in isolation to stop infection or contamination of coronavirus? 
2) is that isolation in line with the guidance being given by the relevant public health bodies? 

If the answer to both is yes, then you should be eligible for SSP.