We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Universal Credit Payment
Comments
-
calcotti said:
Although those paid 4 weekly do have a cashflow issue it isn't, in my opinion, the same problem. Those paid four weekly will always have at least one earnings payment per month and therefore do not suffer loss of benefit income that those paid monthly can experience if two earnings payments fall into one month.xxxxxxxx said: I also note from the law amendment that this will not help those paid 4 weekly who suffer the same problem
<>
Courts found the treatment of monthly earnings when payment date varies slightly to be irrational.
For four weekly payments the High Court also found treatment to be irrational but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal who decided it was not irrational for the SoS not to amend the treatment of 4 weekly earnings because of the difficulty of doing so. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been sought.
https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/legal-test-cases/current-test-cases/benefit-cap-and-those-paid-4-weekly
https://askcpag.org.uk/content/207484/uc-escaping-the-benefit-cap-and-pay-cycles
Those on full year 4 weekly contracts will have one AP with 2 earnings payments which could result in loss of benefit. But I see that the issue was addressed by the court and may be appealed further.
I think it is a shame the court found the treatment of monthly earnings to be irrational rather than unlawful under already existing laws. Unless the law prevented this such as "a payment cannot be legally due on a bank holiday" perhaps? Which is an interesting legal argument. The example of the payroll clerk who was off work ill and the payment was a week late would still have been legally due on its due date.
0 -
The issue for the monthly payments is th loss of a Work Allowance in the month where no earnings are received and this can make a significant difference to overall benefit received.xxxxxxxx said: Those on full year 4 weekly contracts will have one AP with 2 earnings payments which could result in loss of benefit.
In most cases with four weekly payments the Work Allowance is still fully utilised and there will not be an overall loss of benefit - except for those who get hit by the benefit cap as a result of the way it's calculated.
There are of course instances where there will be an overall loss for the four weekly cycle too. There are also instances on the monthly cycle where having two earnings payments in one AP results in higher benefit overall when taken over two months (these will be when no work allowance applies).
Information I post is for England unless otherwise stated. Some rules may be different in other parts of UK.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards