Managed migration has left us with zero - advice

michaels

Peas83 said:

Yamor said:

Peas83 said:

Thanks for the replies. She has passed all the 'tests' to qualify for being self employed as per UC. She went in and showed that she is running it as a business etc. To the point that the work coach was satisfied and has not made her look for additional work or attend job centre appointments.

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

E2a - I see more of your point after re-reading. So, the money she makes from letting the flat out shouldn't be classed as self employed earnings? So are we in a situation where UC are reducing our reward for the capital value of the property and also reducing it by saying the income from it is self employed earnings... Rather than property income, which wouldn't reduce the award?? 

To the other point raised... Yes, the annual/monthly difference between UC and TC is not helping. Her income is incredibly seasonal, so from about now until end of September she earns the majority of her income. In the winter months it's barely anything... Which all ironed out with TC requesting an annual income figure, akin to self assessment. Not so much with UC and monthly incomes.

The first thing I would say is that just because a work coach, or whoever, has decided that she is "gainfully self-employed" does not mean they are correct. Unfortunately, they get many of these decisions wrong. It is very difficult for a property business to count as a "trade", which is what is necessary for her to be "self-employed".

However, as per your edit, if she is truly carrying on a "trade", and therefore "self-employed" for UC purposes, then the assets used by the trade (including any property) should all be disregarded, and not count as capital. So there's definitely something wrong going on here.

I guess the issue would be that if the income from the flat was not counted as her self employed income then her 'self employed earnings' would be too low and they would force her to look for other work. This isn't an option as running the flat, it's lettings, doing all the changeovers, maintenance etc alongside childcare doesn't leave her any time to take on more work. She does some private cleaning on the 3 days both children are in care, this is also declared. Roughly 10hrs per week. The flat can take between 10-20hrs per week depending on season. 

I thought the only test on hours worked was whether they earned at least 1437 per month between the couple?

Spoonie_Turtle

michaels said:

Peas83 said:

Yamor said:

Peas83 said:

Thanks for the replies. She has passed all the 'tests' to qualify for being self employed as per UC. She went in and showed that she is running it as a business etc. To the point that the work coach was satisfied and has not made her look for additional work or attend job centre appointments.

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

E2a - I see more of your point after re-reading. So, the money she makes from letting the flat out shouldn't be classed as self employed earnings? So are we in a situation where UC are reducing our reward for the capital value of the property and also reducing it by saying the income from it is self employed earnings... Rather than property income, which wouldn't reduce the award?? 

To the other point raised... Yes, the annual/monthly difference between UC and TC is not helping. Her income is incredibly seasonal, so from about now until end of September she earns the majority of her income. In the winter months it's barely anything... Which all ironed out with TC requesting an annual income figure, akin to self assessment. Not so much with UC and monthly incomes.

The first thing I would say is that just because a work coach, or whoever, has decided that she is "gainfully self-employed" does not mean they are correct. Unfortunately, they get many of these decisions wrong. It is very difficult for a property business to count as a "trade", which is what is necessary for her to be "self-employed".

However, as per your edit, if she is truly carrying on a "trade", and therefore "self-employed" for UC purposes, then the assets used by the trade (including any property) should all be disregarded, and not count as capital. So there's definitely something wrong going on here.

I guess the issue would be that if the income from the flat was not counted as her self employed income then her 'self employed earnings' would be too low and they would force her to look for other work. This isn't an option as running the flat, it's lettings, doing all the changeovers, maintenance etc alongside childcare doesn't leave her any time to take on more work. She does some private cleaning on the 3 days both children are in care, this is also declared. Roughly 10hrs per week. The flat can take between 10-20hrs per week depending on season. 

I thought the only test on hours worked was whether they earned at least 1437 per month between the couple?

Nope, the gainful self-employment decision is per person and decided by a set of factors (including income).

Peas83

Spoonie_Turtle said:

michaels said:

Peas83 said:

Yamor said:

Peas83 said:

Thanks for the replies. She has passed all the 'tests' to qualify for being self employed as per UC. She went in and showed that she is running it as a business etc. To the point that the work coach was satisfied and has not made her look for additional work or attend job centre appointments.

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

E2a - I see more of your point after re-reading. So, the money she makes from letting the flat out shouldn't be classed as self employed earnings? So are we in a situation where UC are reducing our reward for the capital value of the property and also reducing it by saying the income from it is self employed earnings... Rather than property income, which wouldn't reduce the award?? 

To the other point raised... Yes, the annual/monthly difference between UC and TC is not helping. Her income is incredibly seasonal, so from about now until end of September she earns the majority of her income. In the winter months it's barely anything... Which all ironed out with TC requesting an annual income figure, akin to self assessment. Not so much with UC and monthly incomes.

The first thing I would say is that just because a work coach, or whoever, has decided that she is "gainfully self-employed" does not mean they are correct. Unfortunately, they get many of these decisions wrong. It is very difficult for a property business to count as a "trade", which is what is necessary for her to be "self-employed".

However, as per your edit, if she is truly carrying on a "trade", and therefore "self-employed" for UC purposes, then the assets used by the trade (including any property) should all be disregarded, and not count as capital. So there's definitely something wrong going on here.

I guess the issue would be that if the income from the flat was not counted as her self employed income then her 'self employed earnings' would be too low and they would force her to look for other work. This isn't an option as running the flat, it's lettings, doing all the changeovers, maintenance etc alongside childcare doesn't leave her any time to take on more work. She does some private cleaning on the 3 days both children are in care, this is also declared. Roughly 10hrs per week. The flat can take between 10-20hrs per week depending on season. 

I thought the only test on hours worked was whether they earned at least 1437 per month between the couple?

Nope, the gainful self-employment decision is per person and decided by a set of factors (including income).

Yes, exactly. Both of us had to take in evidence to show our self employment was genuine and had the aim of making a profit. Invoices, records, advertisements etc. Hers was pretty cut and dry, she's very well organised and has been managing the holiday let for 6/7 years. There was no doubt from the work coach about the validity of her business.

Our breakdown did include TP and child element, but was still reduced to zero. Without the flat being classed as capital, it wouldn't be though. 

I've put a message on our journal questioning the classification of the flat as a capital asset, not a business one. However, I've not asked for mandatory reconsideration yet.

huckster

You need to raise mandatory reconsideration, as a review of the original decision. No change will be made, just because you raised a question.

Grumpy_chap

Peas83 said:

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

It seems as though the income and the equity in the holiday let property are both being counted, which makes double counting.

If the equity is counted as capital, that means a "notional income" which reduces the UC entitlement on a sliding scale (down to zero once the threshold is reached).

If the equity is disregarded (as business asset) but then the actual income considered, the income level may reduce UC entitlement (also can be all the way down to nothing).

What can't be done is to reduce UC for the income and also reduce UC for the capital.

michaels

Spoonie_Turtle said:

michaels said:

Peas83 said:

Yamor said:

Peas83 said:

Thanks for the replies. She has passed all the 'tests' to qualify for being self employed as per UC. She went in and showed that she is running it as a business etc. To the point that the work coach was satisfied and has not made her look for additional work or attend job centre appointments.

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

E2a - I see more of your point after re-reading. So, the money she makes from letting the flat out shouldn't be classed as self employed earnings? So are we in a situation where UC are reducing our reward for the capital value of the property and also reducing it by saying the income from it is self employed earnings... Rather than property income, which wouldn't reduce the award?? 

To the other point raised... Yes, the annual/monthly difference between UC and TC is not helping. Her income is incredibly seasonal, so from about now until end of September she earns the majority of her income. In the winter months it's barely anything... Which all ironed out with TC requesting an annual income figure, akin to self assessment. Not so much with UC and monthly incomes.

The first thing I would say is that just because a work coach, or whoever, has decided that she is "gainfully self-employed" does not mean they are correct. Unfortunately, they get many of these decisions wrong. It is very difficult for a property business to count as a "trade", which is what is necessary for her to be "self-employed".

However, as per your edit, if she is truly carrying on a "trade", and therefore "self-employed" for UC purposes, then the assets used by the trade (including any property) should all be disregarded, and not count as capital. So there's definitely something wrong going on here.

I guess the issue would be that if the income from the flat was not counted as her self employed income then her 'self employed earnings' would be too low and they would force her to look for other work. This isn't an option as running the flat, it's lettings, doing all the changeovers, maintenance etc alongside childcare doesn't leave her any time to take on more work. She does some private cleaning on the 3 days both children are in care, this is also declared. Roughly 10hrs per week. The flat can take between 10-20hrs per week depending on season. 

I thought the only test on hours worked was whether they earned at least 1437 per month between the couple?

Nope, the gainful self-employment decision is per person and decided by a set of factors (including income).

DO they both need gainful employment or job search if they total income is above 1437?

Spoonie_Turtle

michaels said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

michaels said:

Peas83 said:

Yamor said:

Peas83 said:

Thanks for the replies. She has passed all the 'tests' to qualify for being self employed as per UC. She went in and showed that she is running it as a business etc. To the point that the work coach was satisfied and has not made her look for additional work or attend job centre appointments.

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

E2a - I see more of your point after re-reading. So, the money she makes from letting the flat out shouldn't be classed as self employed earnings? So are we in a situation where UC are reducing our reward for the capital value of the property and also reducing it by saying the income from it is self employed earnings... Rather than property income, which wouldn't reduce the award?? 

To the other point raised... Yes, the annual/monthly difference between UC and TC is not helping. Her income is incredibly seasonal, so from about now until end of September she earns the majority of her income. In the winter months it's barely anything... Which all ironed out with TC requesting an annual income figure, akin to self assessment. Not so much with UC and monthly incomes.

The first thing I would say is that just because a work coach, or whoever, has decided that she is "gainfully self-employed" does not mean they are correct. Unfortunately, they get many of these decisions wrong. It is very difficult for a property business to count as a "trade", which is what is necessary for her to be "self-employed".

However, as per your edit, if she is truly carrying on a "trade", and therefore "self-employed" for UC purposes, then the assets used by the trade (including any property) should all be disregarded, and not count as capital. So there's definitely something wrong going on here.

I guess the issue would be that if the income from the flat was not counted as her self employed income then her 'self employed earnings' would be too low and they would force her to look for other work. This isn't an option as running the flat, it's lettings, doing all the changeovers, maintenance etc alongside childcare doesn't leave her any time to take on more work. She does some private cleaning on the 3 days both children are in care, this is also declared. Roughly 10hrs per week. The flat can take between 10-20hrs per week depending on season. 

I thought the only test on hours worked was whether they earned at least 1437 per month between the couple?

Nope, the gainful self-employment decision is per person and decided by a set of factors (including income).

DO they both need gainful employment or job search if they total income is above 1437?

I'm going to have to leave that for other members with better knowledge and currently less mushy brains than me to answer, sorry.

TheShape

michaels said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

michaels said:

Peas83 said:

Yamor said:

Peas83 said:

Thanks for the replies. She has passed all the 'tests' to qualify for being self employed as per UC. She went in and showed that she is running it as a business etc. To the point that the work coach was satisfied and has not made her look for additional work or attend job centre appointments.

They are not counting the income from it as capital, that's being classed as her self employed earnings. It's the capital asset value of the property itself that's causing us to now be reduced to zero award. Yet this wasn't t the case under TC.

E2a - I see more of your point after re-reading. So, the money she makes from letting the flat out shouldn't be classed as self employed earnings? So are we in a situation where UC are reducing our reward for the capital value of the property and also reducing it by saying the income from it is self employed earnings... Rather than property income, which wouldn't reduce the award?? 

To the other point raised... Yes, the annual/monthly difference between UC and TC is not helping. Her income is incredibly seasonal, so from about now until end of September she earns the majority of her income. In the winter months it's barely anything... Which all ironed out with TC requesting an annual income figure, akin to self assessment. Not so much with UC and monthly incomes.

The first thing I would say is that just because a work coach, or whoever, has decided that she is "gainfully self-employed" does not mean they are correct. Unfortunately, they get many of these decisions wrong. It is very difficult for a property business to count as a "trade", which is what is necessary for her to be "self-employed".

However, as per your edit, if she is truly carrying on a "trade", and therefore "self-employed" for UC purposes, then the assets used by the trade (including any property) should all be disregarded, and not count as capital. So there's definitely something wrong going on here.

I guess the issue would be that if the income from the flat was not counted as her self employed income then her 'self employed earnings' would be too low and they would force her to look for other work. This isn't an option as running the flat, it's lettings, doing all the changeovers, maintenance etc alongside childcare doesn't leave her any time to take on more work. She does some private cleaning on the 3 days both children are in care, this is also declared. Roughly 10hrs per week. The flat can take between 10-20hrs per week depending on season. 

I thought the only test on hours worked was whether they earned at least 1437 per month between the couple?

Nope, the gainful self-employment decision is per person and decided by a set of factors (including income).

DO they both need gainful employment or job search if they total income is above 1437?

£1437 is the Couple's AET.  A couple earning that amount between them would usually be in the Light Touch work group however, self-employed earnings do not count towards that figure

kaMelo

AET is not relevant to people deemed gainfully self employed, they have the MIF instead.
If part of a joint claim then both parties have their own individual MIF and a combined MIF (both MIF added together).
If both parties earn less than their individual MIF then the combined MIF is used to calculate UC. If both parties earnings are higher than their individual MIF then their actual earnings are used to calculate UC.
Importantly, and rather painfully, there is no offsetting of earnings between the couple If one party earns less than their individual MIF and the other party earns more than their individual MIF. In this situation UC is calculated using the individual MIF of the person who earned less, added to the actual earnings of the person who earned more.

Edited as it's wrong. see below.
 

Yamor

kaMelo said:

AET is not relevant to people deemed gainfully self employed, they have the MIF instead.
If part of a joint claim then both parties have their own individual MIF and a combined MIF (both MIF added together).
If both parties earn less than their individual MIF then the combined MIF is used to calculate UC. If both parties earnings are higher than their individual MIF then their actual earnings are used to calculate UC.
Importantly, and rather painfully, there is no offsetting of earnings between the couple If one party earns less than their individual MIF and the other party earns more than their individual MIF. In this situation UC is calculated using the individual MIF of the person who earned less, added to the actual earnings of the person who earned more.

This isn't correct. If one is earning more than their MIF, and the other less, then they would use the higher of combined real earnings or the two MIFs added together.