Martin Lewis grills Chancellor Jeremy Hunt on carer's allowance cliff-edge

Savvy_Sue

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Savvy_Sue said:

The CA cliff edge does seem different to other benefits. If you have fluctuating wages, your UC goes up and down too: if you earn £1 extra, you lose £1 UC.

Whereas CA, you lose THE WHOLE MEAGRE WEEK if you earn an extra £1 in one week. Given that you'll only be working p/t if claiming CA, that's a huge hole in what's probably an already tight budget.

The same cliff-edge exists with most other legacy benefits, which is what UC was designed to prevent as far as possible with the taper.

CA is a weird benefit, not fully means-tested and dependant only upon that individual's income.  I guess that's one reason the cliff-edge was acceptable to those who implemented it, because theoretically someone could claim it with a high earning spouse and very high savings. 
But for those who do rely on it (i.e. most people claiming it) - especially as entitlement to it affects other legacy benefits if I understand correctly - that cliff-edge can be dangerous.

Would I be right in thinking that these days, there are far fewer people on means-tested legacy benefits than on CA? 

yes, that cliff edge is dangerous, especially as DWP CAN prevent a huge overpayment building up (by promptly notifying the claimant that they have breached the income limit, information which is available to them through PAYE Real Time Information), but historically has not done so. There are some shocking stories out there, and when you consider how much it would cost to employ PAID carers ... 

Spoonie_Turtle

Savvy_Sue said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Savvy_Sue said:

The CA cliff edge does seem different to other benefits. If you have fluctuating wages, your UC goes up and down too: if you earn £1 extra, you lose £1 UC.

Whereas CA, you lose THE WHOLE MEAGRE WEEK if you earn an extra £1 in one week. Given that you'll only be working p/t if claiming CA, that's a huge hole in what's probably an already tight budget.

The same cliff-edge exists with most other legacy benefits, which is what UC was designed to prevent as far as possible with the taper.

CA is a weird benefit, not fully means-tested and dependant only upon that individual's income.  I guess that's one reason the cliff-edge was acceptable to those who implemented it, because theoretically someone could claim it with a high earning spouse and very high savings. 
But for those who do rely on it (i.e. most people claiming it) - especially as entitlement to it affects other legacy benefits if I understand correctly - that cliff-edge can be dangerous.

Would I be right in thinking that these days, there are far fewer people on means-tested legacy benefits than on CA? 

yes, that cliff edge is dangerous, especially as DWP CAN prevent a huge overpayment building up (by promptly notifying the claimant that they have breached the income limit, information which is available to them through PAYE Real Time Information), but historically has not done so. There are some shocking stories out there, and when you consider how much it would cost to employ PAID carers ... 

I would think probably, with all the forced 'natural' migration due to changes of circumstances and the managed migrations to UC.  If not already then it must certainly be the case once they migrate everyone on ir-ESA.

Do DWP use RTI for CA?  I was under the impression that they don't as people are always asked to notify of any changes and send payslips in.

Savvy_Sue

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Savvy_Sue said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Savvy_Sue said:

The CA cliff edge does seem different to other benefits. If you have fluctuating wages, your UC goes up and down too: if you earn £1 extra, you lose £1 UC.

Whereas CA, you lose THE WHOLE MEAGRE WEEK if you earn an extra £1 in one week. Given that you'll only be working p/t if claiming CA, that's a huge hole in what's probably an already tight budget.

The same cliff-edge exists with most other legacy benefits, which is what UC was designed to prevent as far as possible with the taper.

CA is a weird benefit, not fully means-tested and dependant only upon that individual's income.  I guess that's one reason the cliff-edge was acceptable to those who implemented it, because theoretically someone could claim it with a high earning spouse and very high savings. 
But for those who do rely on it (i.e. most people claiming it) - especially as entitlement to it affects other legacy benefits if I understand correctly - that cliff-edge can be dangerous.

Would I be right in thinking that these days, there are far fewer people on means-tested legacy benefits than on CA? 

yes, that cliff edge is dangerous, especially as DWP CAN prevent a huge overpayment building up (by promptly notifying the claimant that they have breached the income limit, information which is available to them through PAYE Real Time Information), but historically has not done so. There are some shocking stories out there, and when you consider how much it would cost to employ PAID carers ... 

I would think probably, with all the forced 'natural' migration due to changes of circumstances and the managed migrations to UC.  If not already then it must certainly be the case once they migrate everyone on ir-ESA.

Do DWP use RTI for CA?  I was under the impression that they don't as people are always asked to notify of any changes and send payslips in.

They can: I think about four years ago it was agreed that overpayments could and should be reduced in that way. The information is available to them, but they are not using it. So overpayments have built up over several years, and I believe DWP admit that this could have been prevented, had they alerted claimants to a problem. 

I don't know what claimants are supposed to do, but again, a few people have been wrongly advised about their entitlement / what they need to declare. 

HillStreetBlues

The few issues Martin addresses.
Should there be a cliff edge, should DWP do more checks, should people that have been overpaid, have to repay.
My person opinion is the less cliff edge the better but if you do change it to a sliding scale that would increase the welfare bill but the next Government will be looking to reduce it, so where does the money come from?
The DWP should do everything in its power to prevent any overpayments on benefits, but all benefits rely on claimants informing of most Change of Circumstances.
Overpayments is a difficult one, as if the DWP doesn't reclaim the money the ones are at the disadvantage is those who claimed correctly, as they would end up will less money than the ones overpaid.

MouldyOldDough

CA pays so little (£81.90) for so much hard work (minimum 35 hours = £2.34 per hour) - should be paid at at least minimum wage - ie £11.44 per hour making it a liveable wage ?

Also - CA saves the country £billions through not paying for self employed carers !

subway98

Bit late to the show here. 

If someone is earning £151 and then carers allowance £80 = £231 per week. £151 even on basic minimum wage, they are doing what? 13 hours a week £11.50ph. Plus they're supposed to be doing 35 hours caring. So thats 48 hours a week.

If you went over carers allowance, but still cared - remember caring can be for hours during the night and at weekends You would still get carers credits, But your earning £630 a week for doing the same hours. 

Or just give up the carers allowance, so the disabled person can recieve their full entitlement back. Remember PIP Attendance element is reduced if someone gets CA for them. 

Why wouldn't you work? 

Aging_Punk

I know you mentioned people losing out due to an increase in Minimum Wage but there was another hurdle potentially put in place for CA Claimants with the reduction in NI which may have increased take home wages - areal double whammy designed to make you feel good.

Disallusioned1703

I’m a full time carer for my husband who has young onset dementia.
What no one considers is that he lost his job due to his illness and I had to give up my career to take care of him. So our income was wiped out and replaced by new style ESA. Because of a small pension he has we are not entitled to any other support. We have a mortgage so can’t get any help there. I have taken on a small part time job to not only keep us from losing our home but also for my mental health and the only support I can claim is a paltry £80 a week for providing care that massively exceeds a full time job. It’s an absolute insult especially when I know it would cost NHS / Council an absolute fortune to provide the level of care that I provide. His condition means he has extreme paranoia so resuming my career and getting carers in isn’t an option besides which I’m constantly providing care during the night and am constantly exhausted during the day.
Rather than penalise the ones saving the country a fortune they should be looking at making the support relevant to the job being done. My life is on a constant knife edge worrying about can I afford food, energy use has increased as we are home all day every day and additional washing because of double incontinence. Also I find it unfair that if I was paid monthly the wages would be averaged out but as I am paid weekly I have to be so mindful of how much I’m earning.
Sorry to rant but every day is a struggle and I could do without the added stress. 

born_again

Disallusioned1703 said:

I’m a full time carer for my husband who has young onset dementia.
What no one considers is that he lost his job due to his illness and I had to give up my career to take care of him. So our income was wiped out and replaced by new style ESA. Because of a small pension he has we are not entitled to any other support. We have a mortgage so can’t get any help there. I have taken on a small part time job to not only keep us from losing our home but also for my mental health and the only support I can claim is a paltry £80 a week for providing care that massively exceeds a full time job. It’s an absolute insult especially when I know it would cost NHS / Council an absolute fortune to provide the level of care that I provide. His condition means he has extreme paranoia so resuming my career and getting carers in isn’t an option besides which I’m constantly providing care during the night and am constantly exhausted during the day.
Rather than penalise the ones saving the country a fortune they should be looking at making the support relevant to the job being done. My life is on a constant knife edge worrying about can I afford food, energy use has increased as we are home all day every day and additional washing because of double incontinence. Also I find it unfair that if I was paid monthly the wages would be averaged out but as I am paid weekly I have to be so mindful of how much I’m earning.
Sorry to rant but every day is a struggle and I could do without the added stress. 

No idea on your age or just what savings you have.

But have you considered UC?
As a carer you do not have to look for work & given your husbands condition he might/should be eligible for LCWRA.

https://www.gov.uk/benefits-calculators

Worth a look if you are under pension age. 

Spoonie_Turtle

subway98 said:

Or just give up the carers allowance, so the disabled person can recieve their full entitlement back. Remember PIP Attendance element is reduced if someone gets CA for them. 

Why wouldn't you work? 

That's not correct at all.  It's the Severe Disability Premium in certain means-tested benefits (most of which are being/have already been replaced by UC which does not have premiums) that they lose IF they were even eligible for it in the first place.

I don't understand why you don't understand that caring full time is a weighty full time job in itself.  You're basically implying carers should work two jobs, being paid far less than minimum wage for the one that is extremely demanding - mentally and often physically exhausting.