AET Threshold

HillStreetBlues

I think the reason of the TP ( or any such payments) has detracted the main issue.

The issue is that your partner has AET  on LCW,  and that must be wrong.

calcotti

pw22 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Think I have worked it out

Was in ESA getting payment for WRAG
Moved to UC and got TP  because of the WRAG payment
TP stopped

They are applying AET  and you feel it's incorrect.

First why was TP stopped?
Second  did they carry over WRAG to UC  so in LCW?

As I agree, in LCW there is no requirement to work,  so can't be any minimum to earn.

My guess would be that it was incorrectly transferred with no LCW.

I think the above is what I was trying to explain badly...😀

TP was stopped November 2022 due to failing to meet AET for three months...

In my opinion, nothing you have described is a transitional element because the LCW element is not a transitional element. Therefore the TP rules are not relevant.

It would be helpful to reply to the question by Spoonie:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

This might be irrelevant and/or completely the wrong line of thought but did he have/should he have had the SDP in his ESA and that's the reason for the transitional payment?

calcotti

HillStreetBlues said:

I think the reason of the TP ( or any such payments) has detracted the main issue.

The issue is that your partner has AET  on LCW,  and that must be wrong.

It is a distraction.
In my opinion the TP is not relevant because LCW element is not a TP. It is a LCW element not a LCW transitional protection element.
Therefore there is no need to discus whether the AET/TP rules apply.

HillStreetBlues

calcotti said:

It is a distraction.
In my opinion the TP is not relevant because LCW element is not a TP.
Therefore there is no need to discus whether the AET/TP rules apply.

But OP  is stating that the DWP are applying AET, so OP is looking to find out if that's correct.

pw22

calcotti said:

HillStreetBlues said:

I think the reason of the TP ( or any such payments) has detracted the main issue.

The issue is that your partner has AET  on LCW,  and that must be wrong.

It is a distraction.
In my opinion the TP is not relevant because LCW element is not a TP.
Therefore there is no need to discus whether the AET/TP rules apply.

I mentioned TP because that was removed from his UC  payment in November 2022 resulting in a reduced payment. When we contacted UC, we were informed TP had been removed from his claim for not meeting AET rules for three months,,,

calcotti

HillStreetBlues said:

calcotti said:

It is a distraction.
In my opinion the TP is not relevant because LCW element is not a TP.
Therefore there is no need to discus whether the AET/TP rules apply.

But OP  is stating that the DWP are applying AET, so OP is looking to find out if that's correct.

The DWP decision is wrong because they shouldn't be applying the TP rules because the LCW element is not a TP. The AET is not relevant.

HillStreetBlues

calcotti said:

The DWP decision is wrong because they shouldn't be applying the TP rules because the LCW element is not a TP. The AET is not relevant.

I never read it as that.
What I read though maybe a clumsy first post is the OP partner was transferred to UC from ESA and should be in LCW.
There was a battle to get a TP and that case was won.
I never though OP was saying LCW was the reason for the TP

pw22

HillStreetBlues said:

calcotti said:

The DWP decision is wrong because they shouldn't be applying the TP rules because the LCW element is not a TP. The AET is not relevant.

I never read it as that.
What I read though maybe a clumsy first post is the OP partner was transferred to UC from ESA and should be in LCW.
There was a battle to get a TP and that case was won.
I never though OP was saying LCW was the reason for the TP

When he  won the tribunal in 2018 he was awarded 2 additional payments - 1 for LCW element and 1 for transitional protection.

HillStreetBlues

pw22 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

calcotti said:

The DWP decision is wrong because they shouldn't be applying the TP rules because the LCW element is not a TP. The AET is not relevant.

I never read it as that.
What I read though maybe a clumsy first post is the OP partner was transferred to UC from ESA and should be in LCW.
There was a battle to get a TP and that case was won.
I never though OP was saying LCW was the reason for the TP

When he  won the tribunal in 2018 he was awarded 2 additional payments - 1 for LCW element and 1 for transitional protection.

That is how I read it.
Your partner  should be in LCW   and should get the payment for that
and the TP  is the difference between the ESA   and UC and should get the payment for that.

pw22

That is my understanding and my question was I don't think they should have stopped his TP payment from November 2022 due to not meeting AET because he was receiving LCW...which is the basis of his appeal...