Universal credit

louise29_2

I get paid 4 weekly, only been getting universal credit a short period of time but this time they had made my payment nil as the assessment period includes my June and July wage. 
I know it's recently been at court regarding this and it was found to be unlawful. 
My question really is is there any way I can get them to pay me this payment as its left me unable to pay bills

KatrinaWaves

No. If you are paid four weekly you get paid 13 times a year, and UC 12. Your other UC payments are higher than they would normally be if you were paid monthly to allow for this

This will happen once a year if you remain in UC. 

louise29_2

Thanks I was just reading this

KatrinaWaves

That’s when people are paid early, like before a weekend or bank holiday. It is impossible to prevent someone having two paydays in one period as you get paid 13 times and UC has 12 monthly periods. 

There was some ruling recently about how it related to the benefits cap but I don’t think this applies to this situation. 

calcotti

The four weekly payment cycle (or indeed weekly or fortnightly cycle) is different to the monthly cycle where one month strays into another. It is arguable that the consequences are equally irrational but I don't think the court ruling directly affects these situations.

poppy12345

louise29_2 said:

My question really is is there any way I can get them to pay me this payment as its left me unable to pay bills

No, because your entitlement was reduced to zero because of your earnings. Next month you should receive your maximum entitlement, if you don't receive any earned income during your AP.

calcotti

poppy12345 said:

louise29_2 said:

My question really is is there any way I can get them to pay me this payment as its left me unable to pay bills

No, because your entitlement was reduced to zero because of your earnings. Next month you should receive your maximum entitlement, if you don't receive any earned income during your AP.

On a four weekly payment cycle they will get one pay packet on the next month.

OP see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-different-earning-patterns-and-your-payments/universal-credit-different-earning-patterns-and-your-payments-payment-cycles for how different payment patterns affect your UC. 

It’s a much criticised feature of UC because it makes budgeting more difficult.

TheShape

KatrinaWaves said:

There was some ruling recently about how it related to the benefits cap but I don’t think this applies to this situation. 

Unless I'm thinking of a different ruling, I believe the recent ruling (at least the one I'm thinking of) related not to the benefit cap but to the Work Allowance.  The issue was that by being paid 4 weekly the claimant could not take advantage of the work allowance to the same extent that they would if they were paid monthly.  They received a lower UC award than someone who had the same entitlement and the same wage but was paid monthly rather than 4 weekly.

Probably not relevant here though. 

calcotti

TheShape said:

KatrinaWaves said:

There was some ruling recently about how it related to the benefits cap but I don’t think this applies to this situation. 

Unless I'm thinking of a different ruling, I believe the recent ruling (at least the one I'm thinking of) related not to the benefit cap but to the Work Allowance.  The issue was that by being paid 4 weekly the claimant could not take advantage of the work allowance to the same extent that they would if they were paid monthly.  They received a lower UC award than someone who had the same entitlement and the same wage but was paid monthly rather than 4 weekly.

Probably not relevant here though. 

No that is wrong. The case related to claimants paid monthly who sometimes had two payments fall within one AP if they were paid a few days early due to bank holidays etc. This means in some months that had double earnings and the following month none. This did indeed mean they lost out on the Work Allowance in the nil month. That was founded to be irrational.

The situation for people paid four weekly is different. They have one month in a year when they get two earnings payments but in all the other months they get one payment. This means they do not miss out on the Work Allowance and that is why that ruling is not directly applicable.

TheShape

calcotti said:

TheShape said:

KatrinaWaves said:

There was some ruling recently about how it related to the benefits cap but I don’t think this applies to this situation. 

Unless I'm thinking of a different ruling, I believe the recent ruling (at least the one I'm thinking of) related not to the benefit cap but to the Work Allowance.  The issue was that by being paid 4 weekly the claimant could not take advantage of the work allowance to the same extent that they would if they were paid monthly.  They received a lower UC award than someone who had the same entitlement and the same wage but was paid monthly rather than 4 weekly.

Probably not relevant here though. 

No that is wrong. The case related to claimants paid monthly who sometimes had two payments fall within one AP if they were paid a few days early due to bank holidays etc. This means in some months that had double earnings and the following month none. This did indeed mean they lost out on the Work Allowance in the nil month. That was founded to be irrational.

The situation for people paid four weekly is different. They have one month in a year when they get two earnings payments but in all the other months they get one payment. This means they do not miss out on the Work Allowance and that is why that ruling is not directly applicable.

You're correct.  Should have checked.  Relating to treatment of earnings where the AP meant that two payments fell into an AP.  The case was Work Allowance rather than Benefit Cap related though.

I would think though that an employee paid 4 weekly could lose out very slightly vs a monthly paid employee where their annual wage was the same and the monthly amount would fall below below the work allowance.  This scenario would depend on the exact amount of earnings though.  They wouldn't lose a whole month of Work Allowance but could find that in one AP some of their earnings were above the Work Allowance where a monthly paid worker has no earnings above the Work Allowance at any point.

huckster

There was another recent case where a district Judge ( York Court ?)  ruled about 4 weekly pay and benefit cap
The case involved a claimant doing limited hours per week and the 4 weeks worth of earnings reported was less than the threshold to earn a benefit cap exemption.  Had the employers paid the claimant monthly, the extra earnings would have been enough to just exceed the threshold for the benefit cap not to apply.  The claimant was therefore affected adversely by UC using RTI reported earnings and not averaging earnings out over 12 months.

Nothing to do with what the OP's thread.   Others have already answered the OP's question.