Can UC force me to reduce my pension contributions?

Thrugelmir

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:

Alice_Holt said:

As she is your 'OH', is it a joint UC claim.

Or is she claiming as a single person? 

No, we live in separate homes. Distance, kids, and my job , so we have separate finances

She lives on around £353 a month excluding benefits........... understandable that the matter is being addressed. 

calcotti

CRAIGSVILLE1 said: I'm sure you would be the same in her situation ??? 

I don’t disagree. I believe people should claim what they are entitled to. I was just pointing out that you said she didn’t want to be on UC but you pushed here to claim. You also said that she was supporting her herself when clearly she isn’t. You just seem to be holding a number of contradictory positions.

calcotti

NedS said:

But I do see this as purely a self-employed issue - or rather one only affecting self-employed people....

In this case, it's about the claimant being self-employed and in their start up period where the MIF has been waived for 12 months. The conditions for waiving the MIF for 12 months are that the claimant is taking all reasonable steps to increase their self employed earnings (after tax, NI and pension deductions) to meet their MIF target at the end of the 12 month period. If they are not deemed by the work coach to be taking all reasonable steps, the work coach can end the start up period and apply the MIF immediately, ..

Completely get that. My comment was really aimed at the reference to pension as expenses. I also stand by the opinion that the claimant cannot be required to reduce their pension payments. However if they don’t I accept that the MIF could be imposed earlier than 12 months.

CRAIGSVILLE1

Dazed_and_C0nfused said:

She has had a low paying job most of her life, never claimed for anything, even though she probably could have in the past.

No, we live in separate homes. Distance, kids, and my job , so we have separate finances

If they're her kids she would have been better off claiming Child Benefit.

Pointless making life harder for yourself than it needs to be.

My kids , not hers, 18 , 16 + 14 
We've only been together for a few years, so were under no illusion, we may, or not be together at retirement, but hopefully, and if we're not, at least she is getting what she is due now for her future

CRAIGSVILLE1

Spoonie_Turtle said:

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:

calcotti said:

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:.. but she does support herself, ...she doesn't want to be on UC, 

If she is on UC she is not supporting herself.

CRAIGSVILLE1 said:..and wouldn't be on it it, if I never pushed her to ask for it.

Sounds like you didn’t do her any favours by pushing her this way.

She doesn't have to be on it, as she is, and has been very frugal, but any extra she is entitled to claim for , I'm all for it, and would make her life a little bit easier.
She has had a low paying job most of her life, never claimed for anything, even though she probably could have in the past.
I'm only trying to get her a little bit extra for her latter years before retiring.

I'm sure you would be the same in her situation ??? 

No judgement here whatsoever, I am simply curious - if she weren't claiming UC how would she be surviving?  Would her income be just about sufficient due to her frugality?
(My stance is always that if people are entitled to support then they should be getting it.  However as pointed out earlier in the thread, it might become a bit more complicated for her once the MIF is imposed.  It's possible she may end up better off trying to find higher paid employment, which is sort of the point of the MIF.)

Yep, she just gets bye, a little more would help her better.
Will have to wait to see what they say about MIF before making any decisions 

CRAIGSVILLE1

calcotti said:

CRAIGSVILLE1 said: I'm sure you would be the same in her situation ??? 

I don’t disagree. I believe people should claim what they are entitled to. I was just pointing out that you said she didn’t want to be on UC but you pushed here to claim. You also said that she was supporting her herself when clearly she isn’t. You just seem to be holding a number of contradictory positions.

Yep, at the beginning, she didn't want to be on UC ( stubborn ),  and I eventually persuaded her to, as she would be better off for herself. And if she is just getting bye without being on UC , she is still supporting herself? Not really contradictory?

CRAIGSVILLE1

Anyway, thanks to everyone who has commented, and I have have learned a bit off a few here - thanks

We will see what her next meeting with UC brings.
Thanks again 

Aaron77r

Hi everyone, sorry if this thread is old but we're on uc and never had problems with pension contributions until the last couple of months or so.

However the threshold for couples has jumped to 988 a month and we are now under that meaning we have been put in the intensive work search group despite our gross earnings being comfortably above 988.

However at the weekly appointments we take our kids to due to working during school hours, we never discuss work searches as we work enough, we just explain about pc's to various different work coach's who we have shown wage slips to.

I can reduce pc's which are workbased and taken before net pay but will likely have this issue every year if thresholds keep rising.

Uc say they just use net pay but there may be an anomally given that people can pay into a non workbased private pension after net pay and get a manual recalculation. If they do it that way they can avoid the intensive work search group so may be being treated differently to people who pay into a workbased pension before net pay.

I have complained to dwp with no response and on the journal, with replies received about policy being to use net pay not gross to determine work groups.

Is it worth involving my mp given pc's are allowed in the legislation and there are no limits stipulated? It just seems like a waste of everyones time!

huckster

@Aaron77r

Start your own thread, as regular posters to the site may not reply to a general thread like this.

The answer is that the Government are applying pressure to those earning below a certain net amount during a monthly assessment period.  And the Work Coaches should be putting pressure on you to earn more money, adding claimant commitments making it clear what is expected. And if you don't meet the terms of your claim after a reasonable period is allowed,  to refer to a Decision Maker to consider applying a sanction.

The PC's are allowed in legislation.  But Government changes legislation via statutory instruments to confirm what they expect claimants to earn as a minimum, in order to continue receiving UC payments.  And the Government are I believe changing the minimum again in September 2023.

At some point the Work  Coaches you are seeing are likely to have to do what the Government is asking them to do.  If your earnings are below the minimum for an extended period, they will be required to book you onto one of the provisions they have available, to help you find more work or better paid work.

calcotti

AET and CET should be assessed against gross income. Therefore pension contributions (however they are made) should make no difference.
https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2023-0365/093_Light_Touch_regime_V9-0.pdf
https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2023-0365/090_Labour_Market_regimes_and_overrides_V22-0.pdf
see UC regulation 90(6)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/90

if they are using net earnings after pension deductions when looks at AET or CET that is not in accordance with the legislation.