UC and if you go over 16k?

Spoonie_Turtle

HillStreetBlues said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

 They're asking the wrong questions but I don't think there's much we can do about it.

Not only wrong they are also incoherent.

Oh I meant in general, asking the wrong questions in the form for reporting.

The response blackstar has had is utterly incomprehensible and sounds like the DM is going by personal opinion rather than any guidance.

NedS

Spoonie_Turtle said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

 They're asking the wrong questions but I don't think there's much we can do about it.

Not only wrong they are also incoherent.

Oh I meant in general, asking the wrong questions in the form for reporting.

The response blackstar has had is utterly incomprehensible and sounds like the DM is going by personal opinion rather than any guidance.

Indeed. Unfortunately, in my experience, it is far too common that when someone does not know the answer, they will have a preconceived idea of what the outcome should be and will then try to find some regulation or guidance to help justify that outcome, rather than seeking advice and support from someone more knowledgable.

blackstar

Agree, every single DM or Advisor at UC either has zero clue about their own income/ disregards legislation or have just made something up about what they think which is completely irrelevant and wrong. 

He even said my childs DLA is not to be counted as but an adults DLA would be counted as capital, which is ofcourse totally wrong in both senses. As theres no different between a child's DLA and an Adults DLA and both are not capital but income until the end of the assessment period after the one in which they were received. But he seems to be saying the Adults DLA is capital the instance it goes into your bank account. Dear me. Honestly. 
Tribunal but looks like I will have to go alone as CAB are impossible to get an appointment with an and highly doubt they will know about this subject either. 

Spoonie_Turtle

NedS said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

The part about income is very reassuring for me, NedS!

As to PIP/DLA/etc., would it fall under this?

"(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."

[Paragraph (4) referenced deals with capital payable in installments, which does not sound like it applies to normal benefit payments.]

That regulation normally applies to money taken from a pension, in defining whether it is a lump sum (capital) or a regular payment (income).

NedS said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Good point about PIP,   now that has me now wondering about that, is it just capital

It's definitely not earned income.

UC Regs state "unearned income" has the meaning in Chapter 3 of Part 6, which is essentially Reg 66. Anything not defined therein is by definition not "unearned income" for UC purposes. PIP/DLA are not there (and neither is UC), so by definition PIP/DLA (and UC) do not fall within the definition of income for UC purposes. So if they are not recognised as income, it's hard to argue in the legal sense that they should not be included (as they are income) in any capital decision. …

Part of the issue here is that UC has no mechanism other than to deduct pound for pound anything defined as unearned income (student income being the exception to the rule), so if you specifically define PIP as unearned income, you then have to introduce a separate regulation to specifically disregard it, and what's the point of that (in legislative terms), it's just double handling.

Sorry to come back to this a few pages later, but -

Does the regulation usually applying to pensions nevessarily preclude it from applying to other things?

The reason I ask is the guidance states:

"H1021 A payment is capital if it is
1. not made or due to be made regularly and
2. made without reference to a period.
The payment is income if this does not apply¹.
                                ¹ UC Regs, reg 46(3)"  - the same regulation mentioned above

And 

"What is unearned income
H5002 [See Memo ADM 20/20 and Memo ADM 26/20] A claimant’s unearned income means1 any of their income consisting of:

… (List)

If a type of income is not listed above, it does not affect the claimant’s award."

So if I am understanding and interpreting correctly, the guidance appears to acknowledge there are types of income that do not affect a claimant's UC award. 
Can that then mean that since money cannot simultaneously be both income and capital, then income that does not affect an award, while it is still income, simply is not taken into account in any way (not 'disregarded' because it's not capital at that point) and effectively doesn't exist within the UC system, until it later becomes capital?

However IANAL (obviously), and very unhelpfully I am missing a fundamental chunk of understanding; ADM H1 says "H1020 Capital is not defined in the regulations but what is meant by capital can be found in general law" - crucially, I do not know what the law says about that so I truly have no clue whether the above is fundamentally flawed reasoning.

huckster

I think what is being said by person at Job Centre and review team, is that money comes in and goes out, but there have been many AP end dates where money held is £14k. And regular spending commitments have always been met by incoming money.  

If £14k is the natural residual level of savings, it is then arguments about what can be disregarded. 

If DWP wanted to test this, they will let it go to tribunal.  And this may be partially about people trying to argue they still have cost of living money 3 years after last payment was made. Everyone can remember over recent years the sudden increase in costs of living including  spikes in energy prices for a period. Why would the cost of living payments not have been spent?

Not saying what DWP has said is correct. But I can see how contrary arguments can be made.

allison445

I have been having the same issues for nearly a year what is classed as income and what is classed as capital seem to be a grey area on one thing most case managers and dwp staff agree is that when you fill in the capital with any changes any month you must include all amounts in all accounts I have been told on multiple occasions by different staff that it is up to the decision maker to decide what is income and what is capital.

Any time my savings go up nothing happens any time my savings decrease my payments are held till I produce statements at the local job centre, The decisions is always that all amounts are savings including adp child benefit cost of living payments and income received in the month basically my savings are as far as the dwp are concerned what is in all my accounts they refuse to disregard any of it the only thing they have ever disregarded was my back dated adp payment for 12 months I have got to the point were I have just given up

I have been waiting on a mandatory redetermination since January  

Grumpy_chap

huckster said:

this may be partially about people trying to argue they still have cost of living money 3 years after last payment was made. 

I think it may have come up in these forums before that the CoL disregard would seem to have to be ended at some point.  The CoL disregard seems to (with current rules) be valid indefinitely so long as the individual can demonstrate they have always held that balance in capital continuously (so the CoL is the last money spent always).  Demonstrating that is hard enough over "only" three years.  There could, potentially, be some who are still seeking to demonstrate that disregard in 30 or 50 years time.

blackstar

Now I have my mandatory reconsideration in place they they are dealing with in relation to them including our income as capital in the previous Assessment Period, does this mean that our UC are on hold until this is decided?
Or does that not affect of next Assessment periods and we will still get paid for the next AP and so on and it only affects the AP in which is being contested?

Thanks all

HillStreetBlues

Been having a search and come across a Rightsnet page of UC Guidance from  House of Commons library https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/resources/universal-credit-guidance
Other Benefits https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2025-0364/128._Other_benefits-Guidance_V30.0.pdf

Other benefits and pensions which are not taken into account
Benefits and pensions which are not taken into account are:
• Armed Forces Compensation Scheme or Service Attributable Pensions
and Service-attributable, non-taxable Service Invalidity Pensions
• Armed Forces Independence Payment
• Attendance Allowance or Pension Age Disability Payment (PADP) in
Scotland, Constant Attendance Allowance (including Industrial Injuries and
War Disablement Pension strands of Constant Attendance Allowance)
• Access to Work payments
• Bereavement Support Payment
• Child Benefit
• Child Disability Payment (Scotland)
• Christmas Bonus
• Disability Living Allowance
• Discretionary Housing Payments (local authority)
• Funeral Support Payment (Scotland)
• Fostering Allowance
• Guardian’s Allowance
• Independent Living Payments
• local Council Tax Reduction
• Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (MSVCC)
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• Adult Disability Payment (ADP)
• Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance (SADLA) in Scotland
• Scottish Government Carer’s Allowance Supplement (CAS) paid twice
yearly to recipients of Carer’s Allowance in Scotland
• Transition to Universal Credit housing payment
• War Pensions, including War Disablement Pension and War Widows or
Widowers Pensions
• Young Carer Grant

The guidance is clear about PIP not being taken into account , but can't find any case law.
What I would suggest is anyone having issues about PIP being treated as capital in the AP it's paid in, is linking the HoC guidance above.

Spoonie_Turtle

huckster said:

I think what is being said by person at Job Centre and review team, is that money comes in and goes out, but there have been many AP end dates where money held is £14k. And regular spending commitments have always been met by incoming money.  

I do actually understand that reasoning because that is roughly what I thought at first before finding the guidance.

I can't fathom the rest of what the OP was asked for though, the DM asking OP to provide proof for something they (the DM) are asserting?  And the whole, 'ignoring the law and their own guidance' thing …