UC and if you go over 16k?

kaMelo

Any income received in an AP needs no disregard because it is not capital and shouldn't be declared as such. 

On your total capital, UC rules do state you should declare the total capital and then claim any appropriate disregards. A DM will then decide on whether to apply the disregard(s) your claiming. The onus is always on the claimant to show a disregard applies.

Having said that I know others who apply any disregard themselves and only report the reduced capital figure, it doesn't seem to cause any problems as long as they are accurate when applying their own disregard.

HillStreetBlues

kaMelo said:

Any income received in an AP needs no disregard because it is not capital and shouldn't be declared as such. 

On your total capital, UC rules do state you should declare the total capital and then claim any appropriate disregards. A DM will then decide on whether to apply the disregard(s) your claiming. The onus is always on the claimant to show a disregard applies.

Having said that I know others who apply any disregard themselves and only report the reduced capital figure, it doesn't seem to cause any problems as long as they are accurate when applying their own disregard.

I have to correct you, with UC Regs there is nothing about having to declare disregarded capital. It is an important as the last paragraph of your post implies some posters on here don't follow the rules (regs) by not declaring it. AFAIK all posters do follow the regs (if they agree with them or not)  people reading need to have confidence that the information provided on this forum is as accurate as possible and based on the actual law.

What I would say if a person doesn't know 100% that the capital is disregarded, then it's best to have it checked.  

blackstar

Thanks both.

I am 100% certain the disregards I have made as we have also discussed in this thread in great detail. 

Very interesting that you mention "with UC Regs there is nothing about having to declare disregarded capital." 

Not sure what to do. 

kaMelo

ADMH2

H2001 All capital is to be taken into account unless it is to be:

1. treated as income or

2. disregarded.

Onus of proof

H2002 The claimant has to show that the capital can be disregarded. If there is no evidence to show

capital can be disregarded, it is included when working out the amount of capital a claimant and their

partner has.

What the DM decides

H2003 The DM decides if capital can be disregarded

1. at the date of claim, revision or supersession and

2. before it is valued.

The DM does not have to know the value of capital to decide if it can be disregarded.

The onus is always on the claimant to show a disregard applies. If capital is simply not declared you aren't showing anyone whether a disregard applies and a DM is unable to make a decision. 

NedS

I agree with @kaMelo, and have stated it repeatedly on this forum.

It is the claimant's responsibility to declare ALL capital. It is for a DM to decide what capital can be disregarded and for the claimant to provide evidence that it can be disregarded.

A Decision Maker cannot make a decision to disregard if the claimant hasn't declared the capital in the first place.

HillStreetBlues

kaMelo said:

ADMH2

H2001 All capital is to be taken into account unless it is to be:

1. treated as income or

2. disregarded.

Onus of proof

H2002 The claimant has to show that the capital can be disregarded. If there is no evidence to show

capital can be disregarded, it is included when working out the amount of capital a claimant and their

partner has.

What the DM decides

H2003 The DM decides if capital can be disregarded

1. at the date of claim, revision or supersession and

2. before it is valued.

The DM does not have to know the value of capital to decide if it can be disregarded.

The onus is always on the claimant to show a disregard applies. If capital is simply not declared you aren't showing anyone whether a disregard applies and a DM is unable to make a decision. 

Remember that is just a guide rather than law.
If it's take from the actual UC regs then it is stated
H2001 UC Regs, reg 46(1)
H2002 No Regs
H2203 No Regs
H2004 Blank
H2205 1 UC Regs, reg 48; Sch 10

Both H2002 & H2003 isn't taken from the actual UC Regs, if it was it would be stated as such.

Yamor

I agree with @HillStreetBlues.

There is simply no precondition to any of the capital disregards for a DM to make a decision before it can apply.

However, I would add that H2002 is correct, and backed up by case law, that the onus of proof is on the claimant to show that a disregard applies. But all that means is that in practice, where capital exists, then it should be taken into account unless the claimant can show that a disregard applies. **
It does NOT mean the claimant is legally required to tell UC about it.

** An example of the opposite is where capital has been spent, but there is a possibility of notional capital, then the onus of proof is on the DM to show that the notional capital rules apply.

EDIT:
I should add that if a claimant requires an extension to one of the 6-month disregards, then that does require a decision from UC.
But there is no time limit to requesting the extension, so in practice, even if you don't ask for it immediately, but wait until UC hear about the capital, and then request an extension, you should not be any worse off (although I would agree that this isn't legally the correct thing to do).

HillStreetBlues

Thanks at @Yamor I never knew that H2002 had been backed up by case law always good to further knowledge.
EDIT is the case law R(SB) 14/85?

kaMelo

Yamor said:

I agree with @HillStreetBlues.

There is simply no precondition to any of the capital disregards for a DM to make a decision before it can apply.

However, I would add that H2002 is correct, and backed up by case law, that the onus of proof is on the claimant to show that a disregard applies. But all that means is that in practice, where capital exists, then it should be taken into account unless the claimant can show that a disregard applies. **
It does NOT mean the claimant is legally required to tell UC about it.

** An example of the opposite is where capital has been spent, but there is a possibility of notional capital, then the onus of proof is on the DM to show that the notional capital rules apply.

EDIT:
I should add that if a claimant requires an extension to one of the 6-month disregards, then that does require a decision from UC.
But there is no time limit to requesting the extension, so in practice, even if you don't ask for it immediately, but wait until UC hear about the capital, and then request an extension, you should not be any worse off (although I would agree that this isn't legally the correct thing to do).

But how can that work as you can't do one without the other. Claiming a disregard and showing it should apply also requires you to declare the capital it should apply. to.

blackstar

Thanks all.

So am I legally required to declare ALL my monies to UC, even says a DLA payment received the day before?

Or just what is capital? But that means me having to disregard capital ie income received in same or last AP?

Am I legally required to declare my COL payments for a DM to decide on wether to disregard them or not, even though I can show regs that show they are disregarded and they remain unspent? 

In my journal they said I have to all my capital so I have yesterday just declared all monies and written a message in journal for the attention of the decision .maker that I belive 

1) cost of living to be disregarded here's the regs
2) income received in this and last AP to be disregarded and here's the regs
3) SDS to be disregarded and here's the regs.

Please make the nessecary deductions based on the above from my capital.

So let's see what they say. Im very nervous as feel they will not understand the regs and not disregard what needs to be disregarded and we end up without our UC and thats going to be really a struggle as we seriously rely on our UC. 
What do I do if they fail to apply the nessecary disregard capital? Mandatory complaint?