UC LCWRA appeal

tifo

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

NedS

tifo said:

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work. If your partner has earnings above the Couple CET threshold then you could move into No Work Related Requirements, but the AET may not apply to you depending on the outcome of your WCA appeal.
You will no doubt find out when you attend your appointment.

tifo

NedS said:

tifo said:

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work. If your partner has earnings above the Couple CET threshold then you could move into No Work Related Requirements, but the AET may not apply to you depending on the outcome of your WCA appeal.
You will no doubt find out when you attend your appointment.

I see.

I still don't understand why they asked me to accept claimant commitments with no work or search requirements (after the appeal decision) then 2 days later made an appointment to review and agree new commitments.

I understand what you're saying though. In this case, it's better not to have LCW as I don't get any extra money anyway and i've then to prepare for work rather than the current position where it's light touch no work requirements.

Spoonie_Turtle

tifo said:

NedS said:

tifo said:

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work. If your partner has earnings above the Couple CET threshold then you could move into No Work Related Requirements, but the AET may not apply to you depending on the outcome of your WCA appeal.
You will no doubt find out when you attend your appointment.

I see.

I still don't understand why they asked me to accept claimant commitments with no work or search requirements (after the appeal decision) then 2 days later made an appointment to review and agree new commitments.

I understand what you're saying though. In this case, it's better not to have LCW as I don't get any extra money anyway and i've then to prepare for work rather than the current position where it's light touch no work requirements.

If you don't have children then having LCW would give you the work allowance, an amount of earnings that is ignored before they start taking deductions, so financially you would be better off (providing you don't already have the work allowance, which you would if you have children on the claim).

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work.

That seems counterintuitive, effectively punishing someone for not being fit for work when someone fit for work with exactly the same earnings on their claim wouldn't be required to do anything.  It can't even be justified by the work allowance because someone with children would already have it regardless of their ability to work. [Not wishing to derail the thread, just musing, wondering if I've understood correctly.]

tifo

Spoonie_Turtle said:

tifo said:

NedS said:

tifo said:

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work. If your partner has earnings above the Couple CET threshold then you could move into No Work Related Requirements, but the AET may not apply to you depending on the outcome of your WCA appeal.
You will no doubt find out when you attend your appointment.

I see.

I still don't understand why they asked me to accept claimant commitments with no work or search requirements (after the appeal decision) then 2 days later made an appointment to review and agree new commitments.

I understand what you're saying though. In this case, it's better not to have LCW as I don't get any extra money anyway and i've then to prepare for work rather than the current position where it's light touch no work requirements.

If you don't have children then having LCW would give you the work allowance, an amount of earnings that is ignored before they start taking deductions, so financially you would be better off (providing you don't already have the work allowance, which you would if you have children on the claim).

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work.

That seems counterintuitive, effectively punishing someone for not being fit for work when someone fit for work with exactly the same earnings on their claim wouldn't be required to do anything.  It can't even be justified by the work allowance because someone with children would already have it regardless of their ability to work. [Not wishing to derail the thread, just musing, wondering if I've understood correctly.]

This is what I was thinking. We're using our couples work allowance above AET so neither has any work or search requirements. If I'm found to have LCW I have to prepare for future work, bypassing what happens for someone else who hasn't got LCW but then doesn't have any work or search requirements, like I had before.

Assuming of course it's LCW and not LCWRA.

From the post by NedS it seems the appeal has decided either LCW or LCWRA. The commitments a few days ago would suggest LCWRA or no change, i.e appeal fully won or fully lost. The appointment to review commitments and agree new ones points to LCW.

But, something triggered the 'no work and search requirements' last Thurs, this was soon after I got an email saying a decision is in the post. I was to accept by this Weds (the usual 7 days) which I did on Sat. The text was no different to what it was before for 'in work light touch'. Then today 2 days later something has triggered this appointment.

I'll find out when I get the letter but I did say to the tribunal that if I'm found to have LCW then it will be difficult to work search etc as it exacerbates my conditions so there should be no work requirements.

My conditions are not going to get better, in fact they're worsening.

poppy12345

tifo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

tifo said:

NedS said:

tifo said:

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work. If your partner has earnings above the Couple CET threshold then you could move into No Work Related Requirements, but the AET may not apply to you depending on the outcome of your WCA appeal.
You will no doubt find out when you attend your appointment.

I see.

I still don't understand why they asked me to accept claimant commitments with no work or search requirements (after the appeal decision) then 2 days later made an appointment to review and agree new commitments.

I understand what you're saying though. In this case, it's better not to have LCW as I don't get any extra money anyway and i've then to prepare for work rather than the current position where it's light touch no work requirements.

If you don't have children then having LCW would give you the work allowance, an amount of earnings that is ignored before they start taking deductions, so financially you would be better off (providing you don't already have the work allowance, which you would if you have children on the claim).

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work.

That seems counterintuitive, effectively punishing someone for not being fit for work when someone fit for work with exactly the same earnings on their claim wouldn't be required to do anything.  It can't even be justified by the work allowance because someone with children would already have it regardless of their ability to work. [Not wishing to derail the thread, just musing, wondering if I've understood correctly.]

  We're using our couples work allowance above AET

If you don't have children on your claim you wouldn't have the work allowance unless found to have either LCW/LCWRA. AET and work allowance are two completely different things.

tifo

poppy12345 said:

tifo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

tifo said:

NedS said:

tifo said:

calcotti said:

tifo said:Am I too forward in thinking this could be because I've been awarded lcwra and now have no work or prepare for work requirements whereas before the same was because of employed income?

That's certainly possible.

 A UC appointment has been made with the jobcentre to "review and agree new commitments" which might mean I wasn't successful in my appeal. But because it's a joint claim and monthly income is over the AET we both don't have work or search requirements.

The commitments I had to agree from last Thurs after the appeal decision were the same as before, i.e. no work or search requirements, which I had to agree by this Weds. I did it on Saturday. Today they've made an appointment to "review and agree new commitments". Nothing's changed between Thurs and today.

Even if I wasn't successful in my appeal my 'no work or search requirements' commitments shouldn't change because of monthly income over the AET.

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work. If your partner has earnings above the Couple CET threshold then you could move into No Work Related Requirements, but the AET may not apply to you depending on the outcome of your WCA appeal.
You will no doubt find out when you attend your appointment.

I see.

I still don't understand why they asked me to accept claimant commitments with no work or search requirements (after the appeal decision) then 2 days later made an appointment to review and agree new commitments.

I understand what you're saying though. In this case, it's better not to have LCW as I don't get any extra money anyway and i've then to prepare for work rather than the current position where it's light touch no work requirements.

If you don't have children then having LCW would give you the work allowance, an amount of earnings that is ignored before they start taking deductions, so financially you would be better off (providing you don't already have the work allowance, which you would if you have children on the claim).

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work.

That seems counterintuitive, effectively punishing someone for not being fit for work when someone fit for work with exactly the same earnings on their claim wouldn't be required to do anything.  It can't even be justified by the work allowance because someone with children would already have it regardless of their ability to work. [Not wishing to derail the thread, just musing, wondering if I've understood correctly.]

  We're using our couples work allowance above AET

If you don't have children on your claim you wouldn't have the work allowance unless found to have either LCW/LCWRA. AET and work allowance are two completely different things.

 Yes, I've 1 child at high school. That's why we have the work allowance.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

NedS

Spoonie_Turtle said:

The AET (and by extension Light Touch) only applies to people in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group. If you were found to have Limited Capability for Work (LCW), you would be in the Work Preparation conditionality group and would be required to attend regular appointments to discuss what steps you are able to take to help move closer to work should you become fit for work.

That seems counterintuitive, effectively punishing someone for not being fit for work when someone fit for work with exactly the same earnings on their claim wouldn't be required to do anything.  It can't even be justified by the work allowance because someone with children would already have it regardless of their ability to work. [Not wishing to derail the thread, just musing, wondering if I've understood correctly.]

Yes, it's an anomaly of the system, the way in which conditionality groups work. Basically light touch cannot apply to a claimant where there are no underlying work related requirements, and affects people in work prep and work focused regimes.

Consider a disabled claimant with LCW and their partner who cares for them. The carer, who is fit and able to work, does not have to attend appointments as they are in NWRR whereas the person with the disability and LCW attends regular appointments to discuss moving into work.

Or consider a lone parent with a child aged 2 who is already working 25h/week and earning £1000/month, placed into work prep and has to come in for regular appointments until their child turns 3 at which point their earnings then put them into light touch.

calcotti

NedS said: Or consider a lone parent with a child aged 2 who is already working 25h/week and earning £1000/month, placed into work prep and has to come in for regular appointments until their child turns 3 at which point their earnings then put them into light touch.

That's daft!

tifo

NedS said:

Consider a disabled claimant with LCW and their partner who cares for them. The carer, who is fit and able to work, does not have to attend appointments as they are in NWRR whereas the person with the disability and LCW attends regular appointments to discuss moving into work.

I didn't know someone with LCW could have a carer? Thought that's only with PIP or other disability related benefit.