Disabled Person on UC and Cohabiting

RobinHill

Due to a degenerative neurological condition I receive UC + LCWRA in addition to DLA.

I am in a new relationship that is going well. However should we move in together my partner's earnings will mean that I will lose my UC entitlement. 

It would not be appropriate at this stage of our relationship, if in fact at all, to be financially dependent on my partner.

I accept that the UC should reduce as per cost efficiencies such as heating etc, but fail to comprehend why it should not follow a similar reduction to as how it would if it were two UC claimants deciding to cohabitate.

Due to my health / disability I am stuck in this position without any recourse. To lose my financial independence seems discriminatory to a disabled person and their ability to have financial independence and develop a relationship. 

I would be grateful for opinion / comment. Thank you.

Spoonie_Turtle

RobinHill said:

Due to a degenerative neurological condition I receive UC + LCWRA in addition to DLA.

I am in a new relationship that is going well. However should we move in together my partner's earnings will mean that I will lose my UC entitlement. 

It would not be appropriate at this stage of our relationship, if in fact at all, to be financially dependent on my partner.

I accept that the UC should reduce as per cost efficiencies such as heating etc, but fail to comprehend why it should not follow a similar reduction to as how it would if it were two UC claimants deciding to cohabitate.

Due to my health / disability I am stuck in this position without any recourse. To lose my financial independence seems discriminatory to a disabled person and their ability to have financial independence and develop a relationship. 

I would be grateful for opinion / comment. Thank you.

I don't understand. If two non-disabled UC claimants move in together, they lose one person's housing costs element and the joint standard allowance is less than £200 more than the single allowance. 
If one or both of those claimants were in low-paid work, the total income would be accounted for and the UC payment adjusted accordingly. If one of them started to earn too much to have any UC payable after deductions, they would no longer be eligible for UC just the same.

Disabled claimants have a sort of cushion of protection with the LCWRA element, which both allows the earnings to be more before no UC is payable (£500+ extra), and gives the claim a work allowance (£292 if housing costs) so actually allows an extra ~£800 to be earned on top of what a couple without LCWRA or children could earn before their claim is reduced to 0.

Edit: I'm not saying the entire system is fair, but I simply can't see that it's disproportionately unfair to a disabled person on UC wishing to move in with someone. 

poppy12345

UC is far from perfect, never will be. However, if you were claiming the legacy benefit (ESA Income Related) UC LCWRA replaced this then you wouldn't have been entitled to anything at all. UC does have a work allowance, which is rather generous. Unfortunately, if you live with a partner that works they are meant to support you. Means tested benefits have to have a cut off point where those that are working, or live with a partner that works claiming these benefits does depend on income, the more income you receive the less likely you are to receive help from the benefit system.

I certainly don't see it as discrimination (yes i have a disability myself)

Thankfully you're claiming DLA which isn't means tesed so if you do move in with your partner then this won't be affected.

yksi

What you're seeing here is discrimination against someone living with a partner, not discrimination against someone with a disability. The presumption is that if you live together, you are in a committed relationship where you agree to support one another financially. The rights and wrongs of that one are a whole new debate, but here we are.

Muttleythefrog

As per the above.... any discrimination really is regarding couples versus singles and arguably it isn't even that. You've had excellent advice above... and rest assured legacy benefits (like ESA) less generous in several respects. Any loss of financial independence is because you'd be considered a cohabiting couple and I don't think it unreasonable for systems like the benefits system to consider cohabiting couples as some different entity for consideration than two people living separately. You need to take a decision... which relates to your personal outlook, expectations and plans... it'll be a lot more complex a consideration than financial I am sure (it is for regular people without your condition) and I think you have to look at that whole picture. I would tell your partner, if you haven't already, how you find that loss of financial independence difficult in mind... they may provide reassurances or express some other view to help with decisions. What you could do... not sexy I know... is set a timeline of plan... 'let's see how things develop over the next 6 months... stay over at weekends...and if things are still going well move in together and all that that entails'. Something like that buys you time to think.. develop the relationship... show intent... and explore living together without actually doing so materially.

MalMonroe

I wouldn't move in together. Disabled or not. I agree with others here who have said that there isn't any discrimination towards disabled people but rather to those who do decide to cohabit. Besides, if the relationship goes sour (I'm not saying it will but you never know) then you'll both have to start all those application procedures (which are really awful, I know) again, one of you will have to find somewhere to live, etc. If you're happy in your relationship, why rock the boat? You can stay over whenever you like but you can also have your independence, financial included. That's the best kind of relationship, to my mind. 

RobinHill

Hi, thank you all for the replies.

Housing costs aren't applicable in my case. Two basic single claimant's = 2 x £330, whereas as a couple it is £515 (approx. fig.s). I assume that the difference is down to the cost savings of living together. The £500 UC work allowance wouldn't apply as it would be exhausted by my partners level of earnings.

The reason why I think it is discriminatory, or at the very least oppressive is take the following ... I am a disabled person trying to "flaunt my wares" to attract a partner ... but part of the bio reads "Potential match may have to support me financially". Any takers?

I have little choice in the need for support, it would be extremely difficult for me to provide for myself through employment. Moreover the state has deemed that due to poor health I cannot support myself hence the LCWRA. An able bodied person does have a choice in attempting to seek employment.

It just seems wrong that I should have to lose my financial independence and have to expect a partner to support me financially in order to live together.

The thought was prompted by the war widows pension ruling and the similarities in that both are in effect state benefits. Albeit one being the result of a bereavement and the other through illness. The principle being that it has been deemed wrong for the recipient to lose the entitlement and financial independence on subsequent marriage / cohabitation.

There are numerous good reasons to live with someone, for eg. if I fall on the floor and cannot get up, or struggling to mobilise out of bed etc, the list is endless.

I fail to see the comparison to able bodied unemployed claimants who decide to cohabit. They are able to work and have a potential way out, as a disabled person I don't. That is the difference.

poppy12345

RobinHill said:

I have little choice in the need for support, it would be extremely difficult for me to provide for myself through employment. Moreover the state has deemed that due to poor health I cannot support myself hence the LCWRA.

That doesn't give anyone the automatic right to a means tested benefit, if they live with a working partner. The standard allowance couples rate is less than 2 single claims because it's cheaper for a couple to live together than it is to remain in 2 separate households.

It doesn't really matter how much you moan, the rules won't change. If you decide to move in with your partner then they are supposed to support you, that's what a relationship is all about.

RobinHill

The war widow's pension was in effect means tested. They "moaned" as you put it and the rules were changed. Nothing to do with the public at large's contrasting views of the military and the disabled?
For example, BBC Panorama some years ago ... "and he is using a bicycle and claiming disability benefits", ie. accusations of fraud. Military veteran has their legs blown off in Afghanistan, cycles 100 miles for charity and they are a hero for attempting it. So in that regard, yes it is unlikely to change.
However why should it be any different for a war widow's pension.
Cohabiting and the resulting loss of financial independence would be solely as a consequence of the recipient being disabled. Cohabiting and the resulting loss of financial independence would be solely as a consequence of the recipient being a war widow. 
Why should there be a difference?

Spoonie_Turtle

RobinHill said:

Hi, thank you all for the replies.

Housing costs aren't applicable in my case. Two basic single claimant's = 2 x £330, whereas as a couple it is £515 (approx. fig.s). I assume that the difference is down to the cost savings of living together. The £500 UC work allowance wouldn't apply as it would be exhausted by my partners level of earnings.

The reason why I think it is discriminatory, or at the very least oppressive is take the following ... I am a disabled person trying to "flaunt my wares" to attract a partner ... but part of the bio reads "Potential match may have to support me financially". Any takers?

I have little choice in the need for support, it would be extremely difficult for me to provide for myself through employment. Moreover the state has deemed that due to poor health I cannot support myself hence the LCWRA. An able bodied person does have a choice in attempting to seek employment.

It just seems wrong that I should have to lose my financial independence and have to expect a partner to support me financially in order to live together.

The thought was prompted by the war widows pension ruling and the similarities in that both are in effect state benefits. Albeit one being the result of a bereavement and the other through illness. The principle being that it has been deemed wrong for the recipient to lose the entitlement and financial independence on subsequent marriage / cohabitation.

There are numerous good reasons to live with someone, for eg. if I fall on the floor and cannot get up, or struggling to mobilise out of bed etc, the list is endless.

I fail to see the comparison to able bodied unemployed claimants who decide to cohabit. They are able to work and have a potential way out, as a disabled person I don't. That is the difference.

No, I rather think you missed my point. If two non-disabled UC claimants moved in together, they would be able to earn up to the level that makes what would be deducted equal to the entirely of the UC award.

So let's say no housing costs, just a couple living together, their UC would be the standard couples element of £594.04 so they could earn up to £942.92 before their UC was reduced to nil.

For a couple with a disabled person, the UC would be couple's element plus LCWRA, £935.96. If they had the carer element that would take it to £1098.98.
Because the disabled person gets LCWRA, they have the work allowance which means they can earn £512 before deductions are even made, so that's an extra £512 they can earn more than the above, non-disabled couple. In total, this couple would be able to earn £1997.65 before the UC claim was reduced to nil, an extra £1054 compared with the non-disabled couple - OR with the carer element they could earn £2256.41 before their UC claim was wiped out, £1313 more than the non-disabled couple could earn. Either way it's more than double what the non-disabled couple could earn!

Quite frankly at a take-home salary for two people of £2250 each month, plus non-means-tested disability benefits, whereas a non-disabled couple would be expected to survive on under £1000 a month, I hardly see how that could be considered unfair on the disabled person. (And in both instances, the non-disabled claimants of course have the option to earn more, because apparently it's just that simple.)

I do see your point that disabled people often don't have a choice, but then neither do lots of non-disabled people stuck in low-paid jobs just above the threshold for entitlement to means-tested benefits. The world is not all rosy for other people just because they're not disabled.

[Btw your list of reasons for moving in just described a carer - I think you're allowed to look into provision for care without needing to move in with a partner ]

I mean, it's never going to be fair that disabled people can't do everything that non-disabled people can, that's kind of the definition of disability. But looking at the numbers above, the difference in means before means-tested benefits are withdrawn is quite staggering.

ruthber

You are not financially independent, you are quite generously supported by the taxpayer.