In a panic please help. AET self employed carer transitional protection ending

huckster

No harm in raising a mandatory reconsideration appealing the last statement that you were not entitled.

This is quite complex and I doubt that many understand how entitlement to UC can be lost in the way explained in this thread.

If enough people raise mandatory reconsideration appeals about this. It should get picked up by DWP that there is an issue that needs addressing. 

kazzyb123

Spoonie_Turtle said:

kazzyb123 said:

NedS said:

HillStreetBlues said:

NedS said:

Yes, unfortunately this is correct.

This is about entitlement to Transitional Protection. If there were earnings above the AET in the first assessment period (which may be implied by the partner being gainfully self employed), then transitional protection will end where earnings drop below the threshold for 3 consecutive assessment periods.

If transitional protection ends, the claim will also close where the claimant(s) have more than £16k in savings as there is no longer an entitlement to UC.

If the OP's partner is gainfully self employed and subject to minimum income floor or the start-up period then would they be classed as earning above the AET whatever their ernings?

For the purposes of determining ongoing entitlement to transitional protection, where someone has been found to be gainfully self employed, the higher of their earnings or the MIF will be used as their earnings for the purpose of determining if their earnings are above the AET or not, even within the startup period.

For the purposes of 'earnings falling below the AET for 3 consecutive assessment periods', it is the couple AET rate that applies as it is a couple claim to which said transitional protection applies, even though only one member of the couple may be working.

I don’t see how it can be the couples AET that is used when my ESA doesn’t count towards it (it’s other income apparently) so he is expected to look after me for 35 hrs a week and also do enough work every week to meet the AET for both of us!
that’s a 70 hour week

Not really, it's only because earnings were above the AET for the first AP when you migrated (in theory showing it's possible to earn that much even with your joint circumstances) that he's then 'expected' to maintain that in order not to lose transitional protection.

UC wields blunt instruments and unfortunately people get hurt by them.

Some of the money paid in the first month was earned in the previous month before we moved over so it’s not possible to earn that much every month

kazzyb123

KxMx said:

Perhaps that's something you could feedback to your MP and/or Liz Kendall. 

If only I had the energy 

8dayweek

So my understanding is… (and it may not be correct)

- For UC you have no AET / CET as you are both No Work Related Requirements (Carer / LCWRA) so no Jobsearch requirements etc. 

- For WTC you would have had to have one party working at least 16hrs p/wk to qualify (other member of the couple exempt, due to ESA - so removing the “normal” couple hours threshold for WTC down to 16 from 24 - so similar to AET / CET thing on UC)

- For TP on the UC claim, based on WTC entitlement you’d need to meet the AET (because the basis of WTC entitlement is a min. work amount - so the min. number of hours effectively becomes the AET for UC purposes)

- TP ends after 3x AP’s with Earnings below AET as this broadly mirrors WTC run-on rules (as in, in theory if the same were to have happened under WTC it could / should(?) have ended the WTC part of the claim)

Whether it’s correct or not in line with the finer reading of Regs I can’t be sure, but the “theory” of why it behaves like it does I’ve tried to explain. 

It doesn’t help that WTC is bundled up with an annual renewal, so for those Self-Employed it smooths over gaps, quiet periods etc. whereas someone Employed with a similar gap / unpaid period would have lost WTC (perhaps forcing a natural migration to UC earlier). 

I think, if prior to moving to UC your Husband was on Carers Allowance and you just had CTC alongside it (with or without HB) then your TP would have just been based on any difference between CTC (& HB, if applicable) with no removal of TP if falling below AET… because the AET (or a min. amount of hours) was never a precursor to your Legacy Benefits. 

Spoonie_Turtle

^ I think you're overcomplicating it.  This has only happened because their earnings happened to be above the AET for the first AP.  It wasn't a requirement for migrating or to have transitional protection in the first place, they just happened to earn that much during that month.

Sure there must be a rationale behind the requirement to maintain earnings if they started out above the AET, and perhaps it is linked to the WTC SE requirements (especially as they weren't particularly well enforced before) - but it wasn't a specific requirement in order to qualify for transitional protection in the first place.

NedS

Spoonie_Turtle said:

^ I think you're overcomplicating it.  This has only happened because their earnings happened to be above the AET for the first AP.  It wasn't a requirement for migrating or to have transitional protection in the first place, they just happened to earn that much during that month.

This is exactly it. The regulations state that entitlement to transitional protection will end under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is where earnings are initially above the AET and subsequently fall below the AET for 3 consecutive APs.

The additional issue here, is that the OP has capital above £16k which would otherwise have prevented them from being able to claim UC without transitional protection. With transitional protection, they can claim UC for 12 months, but the moment that their circumstances changed such that they were no longer entitled to transitional protection, so did their entitlement to UC due to capital over £16k.

Anything else is not relevant and is just noise.

8dayweek

I’ll keep my noise to myself then ✌️

huckster

For the self-employed, it does underline the importance of trying to smooth out the income and expenses where this is possible, to fit in with how UC works. This might for example be agreements with clients on how payments are structured and with expenses to try to spread out payments where possible.

NedS

8dayweek said:

I’ll keep my noise to myself then ✌️

@8dayweek apologies, my comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone), but rather the widespread general confusion regarding the 'AET' on this topic.

Yamor

huckster said:

For the self-employed, it does underline the importance of trying to smooth out the income and expenses where this is possible, to fit in with how UC works. This might for example be agreements with clients on how payments are structured and with expenses to try to spread out payments where possible.

This is one of the advantages of trading through a limited company, as you can always ensure a basic level of income each month via the payroll.

It can also help to smoothen out income somewhat, if you set your monthly salary at a level which approximates one-twelfth of expected annual profit.