Cost Of Living Payment V UC Earning Below Minimum Income Floor

JenWren

Hoping someone might be able to guide me.  My husband is self-employed and I'm in training (DWP has paid for) and we're on Universal Credit.  We received the first COL payment but since 1st July the Minimum Income Floor (MIF) kicked in and since then we've not received any UC payments despite earning well below the MIF.  If it hadn't been for this we would have received the second COL payment.  Not sure what we can do.  Is there an appeal process?

tomtom256

No there isn't. Your husband could have ceased trading and had the MIF removed, but would have then be expected to look for other work, but if no changes have been declared the MIF would still apply.
You can apepeal the MIF, but this should have been done after the decision letter was uploaded to your journal, after he attended the gateway intervention.

JenWren

Thanks Tom.  Didn't realise we could appeal the MIF, I don't recall even seeing a decision letter tbh.  It wasn't until we didn't receive a payment in July that I could see we had been put on the MIF.  Hubby has been looking for other work too.  It doesn't seem fair because if the COL payment was based on income we'd definitely be eligible.  Feels like we're working hard for nothing.  Guess this is an example of falling between the cracks.  Wonder how many other honest hard-working families are in this situation and not getting much needed help.

calcotti

JenWren said: It doesn't seem fair because if the COL payment was based on income we'd definitely be eligible. 

But it isn’t based on income, it’s based on entitlement to receive a payment of UC in the qualifying period.

Bearing in mind that there will be further CoL payments next year and that your husband isn’t earning enough through self-employment he may wish to consider his status. (Although obviously if he gets a reasonably paid employed job you may have no UC entitlement either.)

NedS

JenWren said:

Thanks Tom.  Didn't realise we could appeal the MIF, I don't recall even seeing a decision letter tbh.  It wasn't until we didn't receive a payment in July that I could see we had been put on the MIF.  Hubby has been looking for other work too.  It doesn't seem fair because if the COL payment was based on income we'd definitely be eligible.  Feels like we're working hard for nothing.  Guess this is an example of falling between the cracks.  Wonder how many other honest hard-working families are in this situation and not getting much needed help.

Treatment of self-employed on UC is somewhat harsh - the government take the view that UC at tax payers expense is not there to support a failing business indefinitely. Your husband would have been given a year of support to get the business to the point where they are making enough money to support themselves (the equivalent of minimum wage). If after that year of support, they are not able to earn minimum wage they really need to consider if the business is viable and whether it is appropriate for the tax payer to continue to support a failing business.

You need to decide if you wish to continue to invest your own time and financial resources into a business that is not providing an income, or if you would be better off with your husband taking a minimum wage job, of which plenty are available with employers unable to fill them.

tifo

NedS said:

the government take the view that UC at tax payers expense is not there to support a failing business indefinitely .... If after that year of support, they are not able to earn minimum wage they really need to consider if the business is viable.

Yet companies like amazon and twitter and many other such don't make a profit for years. Yes, i know their owners don't claim govt benefit but the point is it takes longer than a year to make a business a success, and small business is the backbone of the economy..

UC is just not made for the self employed and you're right, they're treated harshly. A lower than min wage x 35 hours AET applies to the employed but not the self employed.

slowcars

NedS said:

Treatment of self-employed on UC is somewhat harsh - the government take the view that UC at tax payers expense is not there to support a failing business indefinitely. Your husband would have been given a year of support to get the business to the point where they are making enough money to support themselves (the equivalent of minimum wage). If after that year of support, they are not able to earn minimum wage they really need to consider if the business is viable and whether it is appropriate for the tax payer to continue to support a failing business.

You need to decide if you wish to continue to invest your own time and financial resources into a business that is not providing an income, or if you would be better off with your husband taking a minimum wage job, of which plenty are available with employers unable to fill them.

Yes they have had to make it harsh. I am guilty of why this has happened in the past along with many other business owners. 
I ran a self-employed business and only worked when I wanted to. My profit/earnings were extremely low, but we still received full Disabled Tax Credits as though the business was thriving. They did not take into account the hours worked or money made. Then this MIF came in so I shut it down and thankfully could claim Pension Credit as my wife is 5 years older than me and she qualified when she was 60 and I was still 55.
It was one of those 'why work hard when you can get state help and do-little work'. 10's of thousands worked that system.

calcotti

slowcars said:
I ran a self-employed business and only worked when I wanted to. My profit/earnings were extremely low, but we still received full Disabled Tax Credits as though the business was thriving. They did not take into account the hours worked or money made. Then this MIF came in so I shut it down

But if you are disabled you would might be treated as having LCW or LCWRA in which case you would not be in the full work requirement category and therefore the MIF would not apply.

tifo

Some of how UC works is not in the real world, such as calculating expenses for every month and treating the remaining as monthly income, in a tax return you have expenses for the whole year. And if the remaining money is client money to be used on their behalf it's not really your income.

NedS

tifo said:

Some of how UC works is not in the real world, such as calculating expenses for every month and treating the remaining as monthly income, in a tax return you have expenses for the whole year. And if the remaining money is client money to be used on their behalf it's not really your income.

UC is a monthly benefit. HMRC and tax are calculated annually. Different government departments, completely different rules. I'm not sure why you are trying to draw comparisons between the two.

slowcars

calcotti said:

slowcars said:
I ran a self-employed business and only worked when I wanted to. My profit/earnings were extremely low, but we still received full Disabled Tax Credits as though the business was thriving. They did not take into account the hours worked or money made. Then this MIF came in so I shut it down

But if you are disabled you would might be treated as having LCW or LCWRA in which case you would not be in the full work requirement category and therefore the MIF would not apply.

Being disabled does not necessarily mean that you are sick. Likewise, you can be sick and not disabled. By the time I was working again I had shut down my contributory IB/ESA claim.