UC and if you go over 16k?

blackstar

It's the little.things, if you dont mind to remove your quoting me in your post as I didnt make it clearly. My mistake and I have now updated my post. 

Please note im not saying our child's DLA has ever built up as it never ever has as it gets spent on our child but as an exmaple of what im trying to say is if for example we have 3k in the bank before the childs DLA arrives into the account and other incomes and say we always end up back at 3k after our child's DLA.is spent, how do you know that remains 3k that was already there isnt the Childs DLA, even though it's been soent, how do you distinguish between what that 3k is? It's just money? It's mixed with alsorts ie earnings, UC, DLA etc

Spoonie_Turtle

blackstar said:

itsthelittlethings said:

blackstar said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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.

Hill that's a great find.

But I dont understand about it is?

1) All income, all benefits and earnings become capital if not spent at the end of the AP after the one in which it was received right?

2) In the links you excellently found it says "Other benefits and pensions which are not taken into account" things like DLA etc but is that just in reference to it being an income and not as capital at the end of the next AP ?

3) the DM said

"Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is generally disregarded as income, but if not spent within the period it's paid, it can be considered capital. any remaining of your childs DLA would be disregarded however, any remaining DLA for yourself at the end of the assessment period would be considered capital"

Firstly hes wrong, it's the AP after the one it's received that it becomes capital, not the one in which it is received.

Secondtly, is he saying the child's DLA will always be ignored as capital like the COL payments?
While it sounds lovely but I dont know of any legislation saying that?
And if so for how long? If indefinitely then at some point the entire amount will amount to our entire capital? Or is it just whats left over from our childs DLA is indefinitely disregarded  but how can you seperate or differentiate or distinguish the childs DLA money from adult DLA or earnings etc from whats left in the account that various other incomes arrive into??? Its impossible.
Sorry im confused by what he is saying?

He said

"ESA benefits themselves are not considered capital. However, unspent ESA payments at the end of a payment period are treated as capital"

All income is income, ESA  DLA, UC etc.

He's wrong also, it's the next assessment peroid it becomes capital, not the same one.

"Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is generally disregarded as income, but if not spent"

Ofcourse it's disregarded as income, like earnings has an impact on UC payments. 

Honestly, even if he gets it wrong, which clearly he will if hes following what hes saying and doesnt sound like he knows or understands it at all, then honestly so long as he sets it as below 16k which he absolutely should, then I am not sure if I would goto the tribunal? How would it benefit me to do so? 

Also in future when making our monthly money savings and investments declaration I wont ask them to remove the income in future as all it does it causes weeks of delays, hours and hirs of printing bank statements and such and then being told I haven't included dates which I have and all strain it causes is not worth it at all. And them getting it wrong and having no idea how it works causing futher strain...

If it was a simple process to remove income from the money savings and investments, then sure no problem but due to 

A) System is not set up to accommodate their own H1050, COL etc

B ) Majority of staff have no idea about income and capital, they think you just add it all up and thats your capital. Even the specialists in the Decision making dont understand their own legislation, then you have no chance. 

So the moral or the story I have found, atleast for me, is maybe save your self delays and put on hold payments, hours and hours of time putting together documents and a huge amount of strain and maybe dont try to get them to remove your income and let them just count it as capital like they want to do and forget about the monthly missed money and underpayment you will get from money you loose from the £4.35 from every £250 from your income they will incorrectly class as capital. 

For your child’s DLA, perhaps you need to have a separate account for it, it’s never yours. It shouldn’t really mount up at the rate you are implying as it’s to be spent on your child’s needs.

 It's the little.things, if you dont mind to remove your quoting me in your post as I didnt make it clearly. My mistake and I have now updated my post. 

Please note im not saying our child's DLA will build up as it gets spent on our child but as an exmaple of what im trying to say is if cor example we have 3k in the bank before the childs DLA arrives into the account and other incomes and say we always end up back at 3k after our child's DLA.is spent, how do you know that remains 3k that was already there isnt the Childs DLA, even though it's been soent, how do you distinguish between what that 3k is? It's just money? It's mixed with alsorts ie earnings, UC, DLA etc

The only practical way to distinguish, if you want to go down that route, is to have the DLA in a separate account and the spending or lack thereof would show what is theirs and what's not.  But I do understand that's tricky because extra daily living costs end up all jumbled together with family expenses.
The only other option I can think of would be having to keep meticulous records of each income stream and what exactly you've spent out of each one if you did want to try to prove anything, which just sounds ridiculously complicated even before you add in the practical difficulty of then having to deal with UC.

(Btw I think the reason it's not counted as your money is to do with beneficial ownership, which is addressed in ADM Chapter H1.  If I'm understanding correctly - which I may very well not be - you are the legal owner and hold it in trust for your child, who as a minor cannot be the legal owner but is the beneficial owner because it's paid for their needs.)

blackstar

Spoonie_Turtle said:

blackstar said:

itsthelittlethings said:

blackstar said:

HillStreetBlues said:

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.

Hill that's a great find.

But I dont understand about it is?

1) All income, all benefits and earnings become capital if not spent at the end of the AP after the one in which it was received right?

2) In the links you excellently found it says "Other benefits and pensions which are not taken into account" things like DLA etc but is that just in reference to it being an income and not as capital at the end of the next AP ?

3) the DM said

"Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is generally disregarded as income, but if not spent within the period it's paid, it can be considered capital. any remaining of your childs DLA would be disregarded however, any remaining DLA for yourself at the end of the assessment period would be considered capital"

Firstly hes wrong, it's the AP after the one it's received that it becomes capital, not the one in which it is received.

Secondtly, is he saying the child's DLA will always be ignored as capital like the COL payments?
While it sounds lovely but I dont know of any legislation saying that?
And if so for how long? If indefinitely then at some point the entire amount will amount to our entire capital? Or is it just whats left over from our childs DLA is indefinitely disregarded  but how can you seperate or differentiate or distinguish the childs DLA money from adult DLA or earnings etc from whats left in the account that various other incomes arrive into??? Its impossible.
Sorry im confused by what he is saying?

He said

"ESA benefits themselves are not considered capital. However, unspent ESA payments at the end of a payment period are treated as capital"

All income is income, ESA  DLA, UC etc.

He's wrong also, it's the next assessment peroid it becomes capital, not the same one.

"Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is generally disregarded as income, but if not spent"

Ofcourse it's disregarded as income, like earnings has an impact on UC payments. 

Honestly, even if he gets it wrong, which clearly he will if hes following what hes saying and doesnt sound like he knows or understands it at all, then honestly so long as he sets it as below 16k which he absolutely should, then I am not sure if I would goto the tribunal? How would it benefit me to do so? 

Also in future when making our monthly money savings and investments declaration I wont ask them to remove the income in future as all it does it causes weeks of delays, hours and hirs of printing bank statements and such and then being told I haven't included dates which I have and all strain it causes is not worth it at all. And them getting it wrong and having no idea how it works causing futher strain...

If it was a simple process to remove income from the money savings and investments, then sure no problem but due to 

A) System is not set up to accommodate their own H1050, COL etc

B ) Majority of staff have no idea about income and capital, they think you just add it all up and thats your capital. Even the specialists in the Decision making dont understand their own legislation, then you have no chance. 

So the moral or the story I have found, atleast for me, is maybe save your self delays and put on hold payments, hours and hours of time putting together documents and a huge amount of strain and maybe dont try to get them to remove your income and let them just count it as capital like they want to do and forget about the monthly missed money and underpayment you will get from money you loose from the £4.35 from every £250 from your income they will incorrectly class as capital. 

For your child’s DLA, perhaps you need to have a separate account for it, it’s never yours. It shouldn’t really mount up at the rate you are implying as it’s to be spent on your child’s needs.

 It's the little.things, if you dont mind to remove your quoting me in your post as I didnt make it clearly. My mistake and I have now updated my post. 

Please note im not saying our child's DLA will build up as it gets spent on our child but as an exmaple of what im trying to say is if cor example we have 3k in the bank before the childs DLA arrives into the account and other incomes and say we always end up back at 3k after our child's DLA.is spent, how do you know that remains 3k that was already there isnt the Childs DLA, even though it's been soent, how do you distinguish between what that 3k is? It's just money? It's mixed with alsorts ie earnings, UC, DLA etc

The only practical way to distinguish, if you want to go down that route, is to have the DLA in a separate account and the spending or lack thereof would show what is theirs and what's not.  But I do understand that's tricky because extra daily living costs end up all jumbled together with family expenses.
The only other option I can think of would be having to keep meticulous records of each income stream and what exactly you've spent out of each one if you did want to try to prove anything, which just sounds ridiculously complicated even before you add in the practical difficulty of then having to deal with UC.

(Btw I think the reason it's not counted as your money is to do with beneficial ownership, which is addressed in ADM Chapter H1.  If I'm understanding correctly - which I may very well not be - you are the legal owner and hold it in trust for your child, who as a minor cannot be the legal owner but is the beneficial owner because it's paid for their needs.)

Thanks Spoonie, that's really the only possible way to distinguish the idea you suggested. 
But as you rightly also pointed out that would still be ridiculously complex and then having to deal with the UC onto of that makes the whole process a failure and a huge amount of strain.

Honestly, I feel totally overwhelmed and feel like my only option from now on is like when I have been in the job centre and they said to me, right need to do a capital declaration, how much is in all your accounts, let's see, ok added it all up, that's your capital, have a nice day, bye bye...

HillStreetBlues

@blackstar
First  1) correct, income that isn't spent during an AP becomes capital in the next AP 2) that is only income not taken into account, once it becomes capital it is.

DLA is that child's income and then becomes that child capital it is should not be taken into account in your figures.
 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/1968/contents The Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 Reg 43

Children

43.—(1) In any case where a claim for [F1disability living allowance] for a child is received by the Secretary of State, he shall, in accordance with the following provisions of this regulation, appoint a person to exercise, on behalf of that child, any right to which he may be entitled under the Social Security Act 1975 in connection with [F1disability living allowance] and to receive and deal on his behalf with any sums payable by way of [F1that allowance].

[F2(1A) Subject to paragraph (1B), where a person has been appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 85A(1) of the 2018 Scotland Act in connection with the determination of assistance under section 24 of that Act (whether or not including an appointment to receive assistance on behalf of the child), the Secretary of State may, if the person agrees, treat that person as if she had appointed them under paragraph (1).

(1B) Paragraph (1A) does not apply if the person appointed by the Scottish Ministers does not satisfy the conditions in paragraph (2).]

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, a person appointed by the Secretary of State under this regulation to act on behalf of the child shall–

(a)be a person with whom the child is living; and

(b)be over the age of 18 [F3or, if the person is a parent of the child and living with him, be over the age of 16]; and

(c)be either the father or mother of the child, or, if the child is not living with either parent, be such other person as the Secretary of State may determine; and

(d)have given such undertaking as may be required by the Secretary of State as to the use, for the child's benefit, of any allowance paid.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), a person with whom a child has been living shall, subject to paragraph (4) and to the power of the Secretary of State to determine in any case that the provisions of this paragraph should not apply, be treated as continuing to live with that child during any period–

(a)during which that person and the child are separated but such separation has not lasted for a continuous period exceeding [F412 weeks]; or

(b)during which the child is absent by reason only of the fact that he is receiving full-time education at a school; or

(c)during which the child is absent and undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution; or

(d)during such other period as the Secretary of State may in any particular case determine:

Provided that where the absence of the child under (b) has lasted for a continuous period of 26 weeks or the child is absent under (c), that person shall only be treated as continuing to live with that child if he satisfies the Secretary of State that he has incurred, or has undertaken to incur, expenditure for the benefit of the child of an amount not less than the allowance payable in respect of such period of absence.

(4) Where a child, in respect of whom an allowance is payable, is, by virtue of any provision of an Act of Parliament–

(a)committed to, or received into the care of, a local authority; or

(b)subject to a supervision requirement and residing in a residential establishment under arrangements made by a local authority in Scotland;

any appointment made under the foregoing provisions of this regulation shall terminate forthwith:

Provided that, when a child is committed to, or received into, care or is made subject to a supervision requirement for a period which is, and when it began was, not intended to last for more than [F512 weeks] the appointment shall not terminate by virtue of this paragraph until such period has lasted for [F512 weeks] .

(5) In any case where an appointment on behalf of any child in the care of, or subject to a supervision requirement under arrangements made by, a local authority is terminated in accordance with paragraph (4), the Secretary of State may, upon application made to him by that local authority or by an officer of such authority nominated for the purpose by that authority, appoint the local authority or nominated officer thereof or appoint such other person as he may, after consultation with the local authority, determine, to exercise on behalf of the child any right to which that child may be entitled under the Act in connection with the allowance and to receive and deal on his behalf with any sums payable to him by way of [F6disability living allowance] for any period during which he is in the care of, or, as the case may be, subject to a supervision requirement under arrangements made by, that authority.

(6) Where a child is undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution and there is no other person to whom [F7disability living allowance] may be payable by virtue of an appointment under this regulation, the Secretary of State may, upon application made to him by the [F8health authority][F9, National Health Service Trust][F10, NHS foundation trust] or, as the case may be, social services authority, controlling the hospital or similar institution in which the child is an in-patient, or by an officer of that authority [F11or Trust] nominated for the purpose by the authority [F12or Trust], appoint that authority [F13or Trust] or the nominated officer thereof or such other person as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with that authority [F14or Trust], determine, to exercise on behalf of the child any right to which that child may be entitled in connection with the allowance and to receive and deal on his behalf with any sums payable to him by way of [F7disability living allowance] for any period during which he is an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution under the control of that authority [F15or Trust].

(7) For the purposes of this regulation–

[F16“child” means a person under the age of 16;]

“child's father” and “child's mother” include a person who is a child's father or mother by adoption or would be such a relative if an illegitimate child had been born legitimate;

F17...

[F18“health authority” means—
(a)

F19...
(b)

in relation to Wales, a Health Authority established under section 8 of that Act; and
(c)

in relation to Scotland, a Health Board within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;]

“hospital or similar institution” means any premises for the reception of and treatment of person suffering from any illness, including any mental disorder, or of persons suffering from physical disability, and any premises used for providing treatment during convalescence or for medical rehabilitation;

“local authority” means, in relation to England and Wales, a local authority as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 M1 and, in relation to Scotland, a local authority as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 M2;

“social services authority” means–
(a)

in relation to England and Wales, the social services committee established by a local authority under section 2 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 M3; and
(b)

in relation to Scotland, the social work committee established by a local authority under section 2 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 M4.

and there is also https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/380/contents he Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013 Reg 57

 Persons unable to act

57.—(1) Where a person (“P1”) is, or may be, entitled to benefit (whether or not a claim for benefit has been made by P1 or on P1's behalf) but P1 is unable for the time being to act, the Secretary of State may, if all the conditions in paragraph (2) and the additional conditions in paragraph (3) are met, appoint a person (“P2”) to carry out the functions set out in paragraph (4).

[F1(1A) Where a natural person over the age of 18 has been appointed by the Scottish Ministers under a qualifying appointment pursuant to the 2018 Scotland Act in connection with the determination of assistance under section 24 of that Act (whether or not including an appointment to receive assistance on behalf of the individual), the Secretary of State may, if the person agrees, treat that person as if the Secretary of State had appointed that person under paragraph (1).

(1B) In paragraph (1A) a qualifying appointment means—

(a)an appointment made under section 58(1) of the 2018 Scotland Act in a case where section 58(4) of that Act applies, or

(b)an appointment made under section 85B(1) of the 2018 Scotland Act in a case where section 85B(7) of that Act applies.

(1C) In this regulation “the 2018 Scotland Act” means the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.]

(2) The conditions are that—

(a)no deputy has been appointed by the Court of Protection under Part 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 M1;

(b)no receiver has been appointed under Part 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 M2 who is treated as a deputy by virtue of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with power to claim or receive benefit on P1's behalf;

(c)no attorney with a general power, or a power to claim or receive benefit, has been appointed by P1 under the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 M3, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 M4, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or otherwise; and

(d)in Scotland, P1's estate is not being administered by a judicial factor or any guardian acting or appointed under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 M5 who has power to claim or receive benefit on P1's behalf.

(3) The additional conditions are that—

(a)P2 has made a written application to the Secretary of State to be appointed; and

(b)if P2 is a natural person, P2 is over the age of 18.

(4) The functions are exercising on behalf of P1 any right to which P1 may be entitled and receiving and dealing on behalf of P1 with any sums payable to P1.

(5) Anything required by these Regulations to be done by or in relation to P1 may be done by or in relation to P2 or any person mentioned in paragraph (2).

(6) Where a person has been appointed under regulation 82(3) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 M6 by a relevant authority within the meaning of those Regulations to act on behalf of another in relation to a benefit claim or award, the Secretary of State may, if the person so appointed agrees, treat that person as if the Secretary of State had appointed that person under paragraph (1).

(7) A direct credit transfer under regulation 46 into the account of P2 or any person mentioned in paragraph (2), or the receipt by such a person of a payment made by some other means, is sufficient discharge for the Secretary of State for any sum paid.

(8) An appointment under paragraph (1) or (6) comes to an end if—

(a)the Secretary of State at any time revokes it;

(b)P2 resigns P2's office having given one month's notice in writing to the Secretary of State of an intention to do so; or

(c)the Secretary of State is notified that any condition in paragraph (2) is no longer met.

You are the appointed person to deal with the child DLA, as the child is unable to claim.

The issue is going to be capital as it's seems paid into one account. If it was paid into a separate account  then that would be easy as it's the child money and if unspent the child's capital.
I expect if a child needs something then you just buy it without thinking whose income or even capital it is. If you take a step back and think about there extra needs, if no extra needs that month then he child DLA isn't spent so then it become the child's capital leaving  the capital there for when there are extra needs.

My argument would be that the capital is mixed and allowance needs to be made for that  instead of the DWP claiming all capital / monies  are yours.

blackstar

Thank you Hill for that. Very helpful.

So yes that's where the DM was coming from on the point of a childs DLA, maybe he has that point correct. 

Again, as yourself and us all have been discussing that even if we had a seperate account for just our child's DLA its still a huge challenge apply the regs too it, mainly due to the confusion and delays and lack of knowledge most UC advisors have. 

At the moment we get our UC, Our childs DLA, earnings etc into the same account. So that makes it even more impossible to apply H1050 and the legislation with regards to childs DLA (that's if there any left over as most is spent on their needs anywayy)

They have all this legislation, a huge amount of it with regards to all this which can greatly benefit the claimant, yet in reality their system and application of it is impossible. Then the UC mostly dont understand or I guess most dont even know about it. I sometimes wonder if its been made deliberately impossible so those benefits from the legislation cant in reality be applied due to the way the system is set up, the staff not knowing about the regs, how incredibly complicated it is to even apply them anyway and so on. 

You see the thing is every month, to get these things applied, our UC gets put on hold, firstly a DM has to look at it, they get it wrong, then I have to make a MR and they too (will probably) get it wrong and on top of that the amount of sheer time I have to spend on bank statements and evidence and theres no time limit for a MR so we can go weeks or months before our UC is paid and in the end its still probably wrong. So what's the point? It's not worth it, I didn't think it would be like this at all. But have learned the hard way.

HillStreetBlues

It shouldn't need to take so long and everything shouldn't just be frozen.
The DM seems unable to convey in a clear and concise manor that can be fully understood, this has lead to back and forth meaning more unneeded delays.

blackstar

HillStreetBlues said:

It shouldn't need to take so long and everything shouldn't just be frozen.
The DM seems unable to convey in a clear and concise manor that can be fully understood, this has lead to back and forth meaning more unneeded delays.

I agree. What is worse is I feel like I cant do anything at all about it. Our last AP payment is on hold, the DM replies every few days with non concise messages, going back and forth and not making any progress. Clearly he doesnt care at all. I could go into the jobcentre already and have shown them the dates in real.time and with the statements and it be sorted already.

I sent in a complaint online a week ago. Not heard anything back yet. Wrote to my MP who weote to them over a month ago and they haven't had a reply yet either..

What else can I do. 
.

NedS

blackstar said:

HillStreetBlues said:

It shouldn't need to take so long and everything shouldn't just be frozen.
The DM seems unable to convey in a clear and concise manor that can be fully understood, this has lead to back and forth meaning more unneeded delays.

I agree. What is worse is I feel like I cant do anything at all about it. Our last AP payment is on hold, the DM replies every few days with non concise messages, going back and forth and not making any progress. Clearly he doesnt care at all. I could go into the jobcentre already and have shown them the dates in real.time and with the statements and it be sorted already.

I sent in a complaint online a week ago. Not heard anything back yet. Wrote to my MP who weote to them over a month ago and they haven't had a reply yet either..

What else can I do. 
.

If this is the Mandatory Reconsideration, wait for them to make their decision and file for tribunal. You can then write an appeal that just states DWP have failed to properly apply the income and capital regulations when calculating your capital, and leave it for the tribunal to figure out exactly how your capital should be calculated according to the law. They can then instruct DWP how to apply the legislation to your claim. You do not need to present detailed calculations on how your capital should be calculated (unless you are absolutely certain how the law should be applied in this case), only appeal on the basis that DWP have done it wrong.

Once you have clarity from a tribunal as to how capital should be calculated when considering income, hopefully DWP will be able to make a correct calculation in a more timely fashion, although this will still need to be done by a DM every AP if your capital remains over £6k (if it were me, I'd be tempted to spend £5k and get my capital under £6k just to make things easier).

I've been thinking more about how income should be considered when calculating capital.

As we know, income only becomes capital in the following AP, if any remains unspent. So lets take the balance of accounts just after midnight on the first day of the AP (before any income is received for that AP). This is the starting amount of capital for the AP, and now includes any unspent income from last AP which has just become capital. Lets assume, for example, this amount is £10,000.

Lets assume that you have received £20 of interest during the AP. That is capital immediately, so your capital is now £10,020. You have received no other capital during the AP.

Now lets look at your balances on the last day of the AP. If your balance is less than £10,020, then you have spent all of your income and some of your capital, so whatever remains is your capital on the last day of the AP. Lets assume the balance(s) are £9,500. This is your capital on the last day of the AP

If your balance(s) on the last day of the AP are £10,500 then that comprises £10,020 that we calculated earlier (the capital starting value plus any additional capital received during the AP) and the rest by definition must be unspent income (£10,500 - £10,020 = £480) which only becomes capital in the next AP. So your capital would be £10,020 on the last day of the AP (and your £10,500 balance would become the starting capital value for the next AP)

I think the above is a clearer way (at least for me) of thinking about income and capital, and is a good fit with the legislation (both the intent of the legislation and what is specifically says). What do others think?

HillStreetBlues

NedS said:

I've been thinking more about how income should be considered when calculating capital.

As we know, income only becomes capital in the following AP, if any remains unspent. So lets take the balance of accounts just after midnight on the first day of the AP (before any income is received for that AP). This is the starting amount of capital for the AP, and now includes any unspent income from last AP which has just become capital. Lets assume, for example, this amount is £10,000.

Lets assume that you have received £20 of interest during the AP. That is capital immediately, so your capital is now £10,020. You have received no other capital during the AP.

Now lets look at your balances on the last day of the AP. If your balance is less than £10,020, then you have spent all of your income and some of your capital, so whatever remains is your capital on the last day of the AP. Lets assume the balance(s) are £9,500. This is your capital on the last day of the AP

If your balance(s) on the last day of the AP are £10,500 then that comprises £10,020 that we calculated earlier (the capital starting value plus any additional capital received during the AP) and the rest by definition must be unspent income (£10,500 - £10,020 = £480) which only becomes capital in the next AP. So your capital would be £10,020 on the last day of the AP (and your £10,500 balance would become the starting capital value for the next AP)

I think the above is a clearer way (at least for me) of thinking about income and capital, and is a good fit with the legislation (both the intent of the legislation and what is specifically says). What do others think?

That is what I have come to believe in the last few weeks, but as I have say before it seems a change of policy from the DWP or at least different DMs take different views, although the guidance was that income was being spend from mixed accounts.  With some of the UC reviews (including mine) income was left intact at the end of AP.

Two issues I see, first it does matter where the money is,
 If income is paid into account A and then moved to account B on the first day of the next AP then account A only holds income and account B only holds capital. If a person only spends from account B then it's always going to be capital spent and that would tally with the guidance https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6894a69d3080e72710b2e237/dmg-ch-29.pdf as you can show spending was from B and income in A is untouched.

29053 The amount of income is reduced when money is withdrawn from a fund such as a bank account
which includes income and capital. The amount of capital is reduced if there is evidence to show the
money withdrawn is from capital

The second point is mixed accounts, any spending must be from capital until the first income is paid, as you can't spent what you haven't got.

NedS

HillStreetBlues said:

The second point is mixed accounts, any spending must be from capital until the first income is paid, as you can't spent what you haven't got.

Oh good god, that blows my simplistic view above out of the water!

If you have £10,000 of capital on the first day of the AP, and you spend £2,000 during the AP (from capital) and then are paid £2,000 on the last day of the AP, you still have £10,000 on the last day of the AP but by your logic above (which I cannot fault), you now have £8,000 of capital and £2,000 of unspent income only received that day (and which becomes capital on the following day). This scenario could easily happen for anyone with AP dates 1-31st of month, who is then paid on the last day of the month or indeed anyone who is regularly paid near the end of their AP.

Edit: Thinking more, the above would be substantially negated by the fact the claimant would receive a UC payment on or before 7 days into the AP, so only expenditure in the first week may have come from capital, and it is up to the claimant to provide evidence [DMG 29053] to show that expenditure has come from capital otherwise the assumption will be that it is from income.