COL Disregard

HillStreetBlues

tomtom256 said:

Part 6 covers capital and how it is treated.
(1) The whole of a person's capital is to be taken into account unless—

(a)it is to be treated as income (see paragraphs (3) and (4)); or

(b)it is to be disregarded (see regulation 48).

(2) A person's personal possessions are not to be treated as capital.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), any sums that are paid regularly and by reference to a period, for example payments under an annuity, are to be treated as income even if they would, apart from this provision, be regarded as capital or as having a capital element.

(4) Where capital is payable by instalments, each payment of an instalment is to be treated as income if the amount outstanding, combined with any other capital of the person (and, if the person is a member of a couple, the other member), exceeds £16,000, but otherwise such payments are to be treated as capital.

Whilst it doesn't specifically state what should be declared, it's pretty obious all income has to be declared in order to be taken into account or for any disregards to be applied. If they don't know about it, how can it be treated as capital or be disregarded. But again it is just semantics, as everybody knows you have to declare all of your savings/capital, all help sites tell you this and the DWP will then apply the disregards, it isn't down to the individual to decide what should be disregarded by deciding not to disclose it when making a claim.

That's what I thought, nothing in the statute.
So what we have is no punishment if you don't declare it as long as as you keep within capital limits as simply put it's not against the regs.

Spoonie_Turtle

HillStreetBlues said:

tomtom256 said:

Part 6 covers capital and how it is treated.
(1) The whole of a person's capital is to be taken into account unless—

(a)it is to be treated as income (see paragraphs (3) and (4)); or

(b)it is to be disregarded (see regulation 48).

(2) A person's personal possessions are not to be treated as capital.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), any sums that are paid regularly and by reference to a period, for example payments under an annuity, are to be treated as income even if they would, apart from this provision, be regarded as capital or as having a capital element.

(4) Where capital is payable by instalments, each payment of an instalment is to be treated as income if the amount outstanding, combined with any other capital of the person (and, if the person is a member of a couple, the other member), exceeds £16,000, but otherwise such payments are to be treated as capital.

Whilst it doesn't specifically state what should be declared, it's pretty obious all income has to be declared in order to be taken into account or for any disregards to be applied. If they don't know about it, how can it be treated as capital or be disregarded. But again it is just semantics, as everybody knows you have to declare all of your savings/capital, all help sites tell you this and the DWP will then apply the disregards, it isn't down to the individual to decide what should be disregarded by deciding not to disclose it when making a claim.

That's what I thought, nothing in the statute.
So what we have is no punishment if you don't declare it as long as as you keep within capital limits as simply put it's not against the regs.

My brain is absolute mush so I can't go looking (and probably won't be able to any time soon) but I'm sure there's a line somewhere about not withholding relevant information.  Telling them your capital is below a certain threshold is relevant to the benefits calculation.
And for administering the claim, on the application form they ask you how much capital you have so to withhold the real answer could not be argued to be reasonable, even if the specifics of the actual answer won't affect the amount of the award.

In terms of 'deciding' to disregard certain amounts you're correct in that certain things are not up to DWP as they're prescribed by law, but in benefits-speak a 'decision' has to be made by a DM who will be complying with what the law sets out must be disregarded.

HillStreetBlues

@Spoonie_Turtle
The reason for my view on the CoL payments is the wording on the statute of both 2022 & 2023
 No account is to be taken of an additional payment in considering a person
If you don't take it into account there is nothing to declare.

I think this could just run and run and it doesn't help the forum. So although I don't think it's necessary I will be advising people to declare any CoL payments in future, as feel that's the best way forward.

NedS

HillStreetBlues said:

@Spoonie_Turtle
The reason for my view on the CoL payments is the wording on the statute of both 2022 & 2023
 No account is to be taken of an additional payment in considering a person
If you don't take it into account there is nothing to declare.

The full relevant paragraph is:

No account is to be taken of an additional payment in considering a person’s entitlement to a benefit under an enactment relating to social security (irrespective of the name or nature of the benefit)

It's a question of who is doing the considering. In this case the claimant does not get to consider or determine their own entitlement to benefit - the Secretary of State does, and when the SoS (or an agent on their behalf) makes that consideration, no account is to be taken of an additional payment.

HillStreetBlues

NedS said:

HillStreetBlues said:

@Spoonie_Turtle
The reason for my view on the CoL payments is the wording on the statute of both 2022 & 2023
 No account is to be taken of an additional payment in considering a person
If you don't take it into account there is nothing to declare.

The full relevant paragraph is:

No account is to be taken of an additional payment in considering a person’s entitlement to a benefit under an enactment relating to social security (irrespective of the name or nature of the benefit)

It's a question of who is doing the considering. In this case the claimant does not get to consider or determine their own entitlement to benefit - the Secretary of State does, and when the SoS (or an agent on their behalf) makes that consideration, no account is to be taken of an additional payment.

As it's statue the SoS doesn't get to decide if it went that far it would be down to the courts.

Maybe someone can point to a case that a person was in court for failing to declare capital under £6k.
But as I doubt that will be forthcoming, I will leave it as that.

KxMx

During a fairly recent UC compliance check I was required to provide 4 months of bank statements. 
I added a journal note stating current capital was over 6k, but with CoL disregards it was under 6k,and that was why I hadn't submitted a change of circumstances.

They had absolutely zero problems, endorsed that CoL payments were disregarded and after running the calculations themselves (they requested further bank statement single pages showing all CoL payments) confirmed I was under 6k.

ChocolateFrog

Sorry been bogged down with everyday stuff but thank you to everyone who has replied. I will declare all the savings and then somehow put a note on that some of it is the COL and ask for it to be disregarded.  I'm sure it will all become clearer when I do the actual application!

ChocolateFrog

KxMx said:

During a fairly recent UC compliance check I was required to provide 4 months of bank statements. 
I added a journal note stating current capital was over 6k, but with CoL disregards it was under 6k,and that was why I hadn't submitted a change of circumstances.

They had absolutely zero problems, endorsed that CoL payments were disregarded and after running the calculations themselves (they requested further bank statement single pages showing all CoL payments) confirmed I was under 6k.

thank you, that's useful to know.

Newcad

It seems pretty clearly stated in the legislation.

UC regulations 2013, Part 6, regulation 46 (1)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/part/6/chapter/1

(1) The whole of a person's capital is to be taken into account unless—

(My bolding there).

So you have to tell them about (declare) the whole of your capital so that it can then be taken into account.

tomtom256

HillStreetBlues said:

As it's statue the SoS doesn't get to decide if it went that far it would be down to the courts.

Maybe someone can point to a case that a person was in court for failing to declare capital under £6k.
But as I doubt that will be forthcoming, I will leave it as that.

As previously advised OP stated he had over £6k, which is what could have caused issues. But you sit on your high horse.