Universal Credit & inheritance

Newcad

Mmm, I'm still not convinced either way..

(I guess that it's time I did more searching on the question of 'immediate' termination. I'll get my ADM and legislation goggles on later).

It may well be that there is nothing to prevent it, even if nothing specific says that it is allowed.
What legislation doesn't say can be as important as what it does say.

PS. Any such appeal would be simply on the timing of the decision itself, other or subsequent events would not come into it.

Yamor

Newcad said:

Mmm, I'm still not convinced either way..

(I guess that it's time I did more searching on the question of 'immediate' termination. I'll get my ADM and legislation goggles on later).

It may well be that there is nothing to prevent it, even if nothing specific says that it is allowed.
What legislation doesn't say can be as important as what it does say.

PS. Any such appeal would be simply on the timing of the decision itself, other or subsequent events would not come into it.

I get what youre saying. But, as above, I don't think there is any reason they can't make the decision prior to the end of the AP.

In fact, in one case, the legislation actually  implies that this can be done: See Reg. 54(2)(a).

Also, I don't think it makes sense to have an appeal just on the timing of the decision. If the DM did not have the capability to make a decision, them the decision is null and void, and there is nothing to appeal under the SS Act 1998. The timing of the decision is not a component of the decision.

NedS

Yamor said:

NedS said:

Alice_Holt said:

TELLIT01 said:

mOunsNN6KL said:

ah thank you very much, so if i can prove that i've had a loan/debts from my family then i should be safe that my UC will be unaffected.

Once you have less than £16k your entitlement to UC will continue.  If you have more than £16k in your account, even if it is intended to repay debt, it will still end entitlement until such time as the debt is repaid. 

       To clarify. 

       It's the amount of savings at the end of the assessment period that's crucial.

   If you have more than £16k at any time, but this reduces to below £16k at the end of the assessment period, then UC can still be paid for that assessment period. 
Assuming, of course, that the reason for the reduction in savings is allowable for UC purposes (e.g  repayment of a documented loan).

Maybe, but where a claimant declares (and has verified) more than £16,000 during an assessment period, the claim would close immediately and they would not make it to the end of their assessment period to find out how much capital they may then have. UC would not defer claim closure action until the end of the AP once capital over £16k has been verified.

Your statement implies they should not declare their capital immediately? (I'm looking for a devil's advocate emoji)

I agree that the award would be terminated immediately, but the claimant could make a new claim immediately when their capital reduces, and the new award would have the same AP dates, so effectively there would be no break in entitlement.

I'm not so sure - there were changes recently (I think) which means that only claims that are closed due to NIL by earnings are treated as reclaims retaining the same AP dates. Claim closures for any other reason result in a new claim with a new 5 week wait for first payment - effectively treated as new claims rather than a reclaim.

Yamor

NedS said:

Yamor said:

NedS said:

Alice_Holt said:

TELLIT01 said:

mOunsNN6KL said:

ah thank you very much, so if i can prove that i've had a loan/debts from my family then i should be safe that my UC will be unaffected.

Once you have less than £16k your entitlement to UC will continue.  If you have more than £16k in your account, even if it is intended to repay debt, it will still end entitlement until such time as the debt is repaid. 

       To clarify. 

       It's the amount of savings at the end of the assessment period that's crucial.

   If you have more than £16k at any time, but this reduces to below £16k at the end of the assessment period, then UC can still be paid for that assessment period. 
Assuming, of course, that the reason for the reduction in savings is allowable for UC purposes (e.g  repayment of a documented loan).

Maybe, but where a claimant declares (and has verified) more than £16,000 during an assessment period, the claim would close immediately and they would not make it to the end of their assessment period to find out how much capital they may then have. UC would not defer claim closure action until the end of the AP once capital over £16k has been verified.

Your statement implies they should not declare their capital immediately? (I'm looking for a devil's advocate emoji)

I agree that the award would be terminated immediately, but the claimant could make a new claim immediately when their capital reduces, and the new award would have the same AP dates, so effectively there would be no break in entitlement.

I'm not so sure - there were changes recently (I think) which means that only claims that are closed due to NIL by earnings are treated as reclaims retaining the same AP dates. Claim closures for any other reason result in a new claim with a new 5 week wait for first payment - effectively treated as new claims rather than a reclaim.

I think you are referring to the auto-reclaims which were introduced during covid. This indeed only applies to claims which were refused, or awards which were terminated, due to income (not just earnings). See Reg. 32A of the UC(C&P) Regs.

However, the rules about the old AP dates being used for a new claim, and the new claim being backdated to the start of the AP, are drawn more widely, and include cases where the termination was due to capital. See Reg. 21(3C) of the UC Regs and Reg. 26(5) of the UC(C&P) Regs.

Newcad

Yamor said:

I get what youre saying. But, as above, I don't think there is any reason they can't make the decision prior to the end of the AP.

In fact, in one case, the legislation actually  implies that this can be done: See Reg. 54(2)(a).

Are we looking at the same legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/54
reg 54 'Calculation of earned income - general principles'

54(2)(a) is for the first AP which has various special rules, 54(2)(b) is for other AP's.

Neither talks about terminating an award, they talk about estimating income "in respect of an assessment period" ie. the whole assessment period.

As I see it any change during an AP applies from the start of that AP (with a few exceptions such as reaching state pension age) so there is no need for any 'Immediate Termination' because the end of AP decision picks up the change and applies it back to the start of that AP. (and it is a new decision at the end of each AP, that has been established).

So rather than legislation it becomes a matter of administrative practice, and just when the DWP will close off claimant access to post on their journal.
Whether they should restrict access to the journal, or to the whole claim account, at all is debatable and often the subject of discussion on rightsnet when advisors can't find out what went on with a 'closed' claim because the DWP has closed access to the account.

Yamor

Reg 54(2)(a) states that a determination regarding income can be made before reaching the end of the relevant AP. This would only be necessary if a decision was being made prior to the end of the AP.
I wasn't saying it is an exact match for a case where an existing award is terminated, but it does imply decisions can be made before the end of the AP, and there is no need to wait until the AP has ended.

I agree there is no need for a decision to be made immediately, however there is nothing to stop a decision being made immediately, and it is difficult to see how such a decision can be revised or appealed, as per my earlier post.

Just on the point about a new decision being made every AP: this is not at all clear, and should not be taken for granted. Even where there has been a change in employment income, the legislation is explicit that no new decision is needed.
Whether DWP in practice make a new decision each month, and whether any such purported decision has the legal status of a "decision" when there has not been any change, is debatable.

Closing off access to the journal is a whole different point, and is not relevant to all of this, IMO.
In practice, once a decision is made to terminate the award, the claimant will lose access to their journal immediately.

Newcad

Yamor said:
Whether DWP in practice make a new decision each month, and whether any such purported decision has the legal status of a "decision" when there has not been any change, is debatable.

Yes. it's well debated and depends on whether you mean a decision, or a "decision" made by a 'Decision Maker'.

Here's one such debate thread: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15546/#73775

To sumarise the thinking there:
Under UC each AP requires a decision to be made before payment is made, a decision on entiltlement and how much should be paid due to that entitlement. (Even if nothing changes entitlement is considered by the computer each month and so a new decision on the amount to pay is made each month).
In legacy benefits such payment decisions were much less frequent and made by a person, but in UC there are millions each month and most are made automatically by the computer programmes.

Peversely for a system that is specifically designed to make such automatic decisions the DWP then contend that such decisons made by the computer programmes are not actually "decisions" and so are not appealable.
However:
As you clearly can challenge/MR/appeal payment errors then that has to be a payment decision that you are challenging.