UC by 2024

Yamor

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

kaMelo

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

I don't fundamentally misunderstand how transitional protection works, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. .

You are interpreting paragraph 54 (7) as though it should include student loans as unearned income. In my opinion your interpretation is flawed. As tax credits does not include student loans in any calculation to determine entitlement, neither will it be used in any indicative UC calculation
Transitional protection will then apply subject to earnings deductions in accordance with the rules.

Yamor

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

I don't fundamentally misunderstand how transitional protection works, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. .

You are interpreting paragraph 54 (7) as though it should include student loans as unearned income. In my opinion your interpretation is flawed. As tax credits does not include student loans in any calculation to determine entitlement, neither will it be used in any indicative UC calculation
Transitional protection will then apply subject to earnings deductions in accordance with the rules.

I’m sorry, but there is no way that is the meaning of the Regs.

Reg 54(1) states “The indicative UC amount is the amount to which a claimant would be entitled if an award of universal credit were calculated in accordance with section 8 of the Act by reference to the claimant’s circumstances on the migration day, applying the assumptions in paragraph (2).”

Para (2) then states the three assumptions which are to be made, none of which are that the claimant has the same amount of unearned income as was taken into account by tax credits (although there is such a rule for earned income).

Para (7) then explains where the information is supposed to come from: either legacy benefits where possible, or if necessary further evidence etc.

According to you, capital would never be taken into account either, because it wasn’t taken into account in tax credits. But it is clear it is taken into account: see Reg 51(2)(b) and 54(4).

NedS

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

I don't fundamentally misunderstand how transitional protection works, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. .

You are interpreting paragraph 54 (7) as though it should include student loans as unearned income. In my opinion your interpretation is flawed. As tax credits does not include student loans in any calculation to determine entitlement, neither will it be used in any indicative UC calculation
Transitional protection will then apply subject to earnings deductions in accordance with the rules.

I’m sorry, but there is no way that is the meaning of the Regs.

Reg 54(1) states “The indicative UC amount is the amount to which a claimant would be entitled if an award of universal credit were calculated in accordance with section 8 of the Act by reference to the claimant’s circumstances on the migration day, applying the assumptions in paragraph (2).”

Para (2) then states the three assumptions which are to be made, none of which are that the claimant has the same amount of unearned income as was taken into account by tax credits (although there is such a rule for earned income).

Para (7) then explains where the information is supposed to come from: either legacy benefits where possible, or if necessary further evidence etc.

According to you, capital would never be taken into account either, because it wasn’t taken into account in tax credits. But it is clear it is taken into account: see Reg 51(2)(b) and 54(4).

Regardless of differing interpretations, that is not how DWP are interpreting it, as you stated above.

The only way this would be resolved is via a court case / ruling to determine if DWP's interpretation of the regulations is lawful.

Yamor

NedS said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

I don't fundamentally misunderstand how transitional protection works, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. .

You are interpreting paragraph 54 (7) as though it should include student loans as unearned income. In my opinion your interpretation is flawed. As tax credits does not include student loans in any calculation to determine entitlement, neither will it be used in any indicative UC calculation
Transitional protection will then apply subject to earnings deductions in accordance with the rules.

I’m sorry, but there is no way that is the meaning of the Regs.

Reg 54(1) states “The indicative UC amount is the amount to which a claimant would be entitled if an award of universal credit were calculated in accordance with section 8 of the Act by reference to the claimant’s circumstances on the migration day, applying the assumptions in paragraph (2).”

Para (2) then states the three assumptions which are to be made, none of which are that the claimant has the same amount of unearned income as was taken into account by tax credits (although there is such a rule for earned income).

Para (7) then explains where the information is supposed to come from: either legacy benefits where possible, or if necessary further evidence etc.

According to you, capital would never be taken into account either, because it wasn’t taken into account in tax credits. But it is clear it is taken into account: see Reg 51(2)(b) and 54(4).

Regardless of differing interpretations, that is not how DWP are interpreting it, as you stated above.

The only way this would be resolved is via a court case / ruling to determine if DWP's interpretation of the regulations is lawful.

I wouldn't say that DWP are interpreting the legislation differently. They have simply decided to calculate the transitional element in a way which allows it to be as automated as possible, and comes to the correct answer in the majority of cases. Even in cases where the tool gets it wrong, more often than not the claimant is actually better off because of it.

In any specific case, I actually think there is a very good possibility that the decision would be reversed at the MR stage, or at least before getting to an appeal hearing.

There has actually been a lot of talk about this issue within some benefit advice organisations, and meetings have recently been held between DWP and these organisations discussing the issue.

andrewmp

Yamor said:

NedS said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

I don't fundamentally misunderstand how transitional protection works, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. .

You are interpreting paragraph 54 (7) as though it should include student loans as unearned income. In my opinion your interpretation is flawed. As tax credits does not include student loans in any calculation to determine entitlement, neither will it be used in any indicative UC calculation
Transitional protection will then apply subject to earnings deductions in accordance with the rules.

I’m sorry, but there is no way that is the meaning of the Regs.

Reg 54(1) states “The indicative UC amount is the amount to which a claimant would be entitled if an award of universal credit were calculated in accordance with section 8 of the Act by reference to the claimant’s circumstances on the migration day, applying the assumptions in paragraph (2).”

Para (2) then states the three assumptions which are to be made, none of which are that the claimant has the same amount of unearned income as was taken into account by tax credits (although there is such a rule for earned income).

Para (7) then explains where the information is supposed to come from: either legacy benefits where possible, or if necessary further evidence etc.

According to you, capital would never be taken into account either, because it wasn’t taken into account in tax credits. But it is clear it is taken into account: see Reg 51(2)(b) and 54(4).

Regardless of differing interpretations, that is not how DWP are interpreting it, as you stated above.

The only way this would be resolved is via a court case / ruling to determine if DWP's interpretation of the regulations is lawful.

I wouldn't say that DWP are interpreting the legislation differently. They have simply decided to calculate the transitional element in a way which allows it to be as automated as possible, and comes to the correct answer in the majority of cases. Even in cases where the tool gets it wrong, more often than not the claimant is actually better off because of it.

In any specific case, I actually think there is a very good possibility that the decision would be reversed at the MR stage, or at least before getting to an appeal hearing.

There has actually been a lot of talk about this issue within some benefit advice organisations, and meetings have recently been held between DWP and these organisations discussing the issue.

I'll tell my friend. He was really worried.

NedS

Yamor said:

NedS said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

kaMelo said:

Yamor said:

Although it is true that the tool used by DWP to calculate the transitional element does not take into account any student income (meaning that claimants with student loans will be worse off), it is very important to realise that this does not comply with the regulations, which are clear that the transitional element should be calculated taking into account any student income.
As such, anyone who finds themselves in this situation should be immediately requesting a mandatory reconsideration (followed by an appeal if necessary) on the decision made about their entitlement for their first AP, on the grounds that the transitional element has been wrongly calculated.

No it doesn't. Under UC every claimant, even those who have transitional protection, is still subject to deductions for income. The anomaly occurs as student loans were never considered income under tax credits, leading to students who qualified for tax credits being treated more favourably, especially compared to students who didn't qualify for tax credits.
All UC does is remove their advantageous position.

This is incorrect, and is because you fundamentally misunderstand how the transitional element is calculated.

Study the rules in The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014, Reg 53-55.

Of course deductions for both earned income and unearned income are still made from the claimant’s UC award. However, the transitional element is calculated in a way to ensure that after those deductions, the final entitlement is equal to what it was under legacy benefits.

Now, there is a rule which says that when making the calculation, earned income for UC is assumed to be the same level as it was under tax credits, even if in practice it will be different (see Reg 54(2)(c)(i)). This could indeed make some claimants better or worse off.

However, for unearned income, there is no such rule, and when calculating the “indicative UC amount”, the actual unearned income must be used (with the necessary information obtained under Reg 54(7)). This means student income should be taken into account when calculating the transitional element.

The issue is simply that DWP’s tool for calculating the transitional element is very simplistic, and does not allow for this additional information regarding student income to be accounted for, and would therefore lead to claimants being worse off. Hence my advice to request an MR, and potentially take it to appeal.

I don't fundamentally misunderstand how transitional protection works, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation. .

You are interpreting paragraph 54 (7) as though it should include student loans as unearned income. In my opinion your interpretation is flawed. As tax credits does not include student loans in any calculation to determine entitlement, neither will it be used in any indicative UC calculation
Transitional protection will then apply subject to earnings deductions in accordance with the rules.

I’m sorry, but there is no way that is the meaning of the Regs.

Reg 54(1) states “The indicative UC amount is the amount to which a claimant would be entitled if an award of universal credit were calculated in accordance with section 8 of the Act by reference to the claimant’s circumstances on the migration day, applying the assumptions in paragraph (2).”

Para (2) then states the three assumptions which are to be made, none of which are that the claimant has the same amount of unearned income as was taken into account by tax credits (although there is such a rule for earned income).

Para (7) then explains where the information is supposed to come from: either legacy benefits where possible, or if necessary further evidence etc.

According to you, capital would never be taken into account either, because it wasn’t taken into account in tax credits. But it is clear it is taken into account: see Reg 51(2)(b) and 54(4).

Regardless of differing interpretations, that is not how DWP are interpreting it, as you stated above.

The only way this would be resolved is via a court case / ruling to determine if DWP's interpretation of the regulations is lawful.

I wouldn't say that DWP are interpreting the legislation differently. They have simply decided to calculate the transitional element in a way which allows it to be as automated as possible, and comes to the correct answer in the majority of cases. Even in cases where the tool gets it wrong, more often than not the claimant is actually better off because of it.

In any specific case, I actually think there is a very good possibility that the decision would be reversed at the MR stage, or at least before getting to an appeal hearing.

There has actually been a lot of talk about this issue within some benefit advice organisations, and meetings have recently been held between DWP and these organisations discussing the issue.

Having looked into this more, I think you may be right.

At a simplistic level, what appears to be happening in many cases is that the TP calculation is being performed before the "supplemented as necessary by such further information or evidence as required" is available. In the case of student income, this information is simply not available to DWP until the claimant provides it, and often this can take some time to gather all the necessary information from the claimant. In the meantime, the TP calculation is often performed without it, so it is simply not taken into account.

Newcad

The UC claim process is a set of questions asked by a computer programme, it nearly always needs follow ups, by a person, to gather more information based on the answers that you give to those questions.

That usually does happen in the first month before a UC payment is made.

The problems come when nobody follows up and asks the extra questions needed, relying instead on the computer.

(The old 'Computer says no' problem).