Cost of Living payments disregarded question?

blackstar

If you have say 3 savings accounts and the account that the COL payments went into did go below the amount that was received of the COL payment but the combined amount of your savings from your other accounts which the COL did NOT go into, overall your savings never went below the full amount of the COL payments?

So if my overall capital did not go below the full amount of COL payments in my other accounts but it did go below the COL payments in the account it was received into, then is it correct that my full cost of living payments are still fully recognised?

blackstar

H1767 Cost of Living Payments should not be considered as part of a claimant’s capital:

 1. during the AP they are received or

2. In any subsequent AP they remain unspent

I found the above. Basically saying if they remain unspent? But if the account it went into the capital did go lower than the COL payments received but my savings in my other account did not drop below the cost of living payments then can it still be seen as being unspent?

Sure I also read somewhere about so long as your capital doesn't go below the amount of col payments but what if it was the above situation?

huckster

Why are you creating multiple threads on the same subject, rather than adding a new post to an existing thread ?

Thread about UC and capital where COL was discussed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81427700#Comment_81427700

Spoonie_Turtle

I don't know what the actual answer is, but it'd be quite hard to argue you've not spent any when they were in their own account and you have spent some of it.

blackstar

Do you think my example is correct?

For example. 

Sue has £2,000 in her TSB bank account and has £3,000 in her Halifax account, overall all total £5,000  Her total col payments was £1,550.. She spends £2,000 in her TSB account so is left with zero in that account. The TSB account is the account the COL payments went into. She still has £3,000 in her other account. 

Her overall total in savings and capital never dropped below £1,550 as she had  £3,000 in her Halifax axcount. She is considered by DWP to still have her £1,550 Col payments. It is irrelevant which account she was paid her COL payments  into. It's her overall savings and capital which is taken into account. 

HillStreetBlues

blackstar said:

Do you think my example is correct?

For example. 

Sue has £2,000 in her TSB bank account and has £3,000 in her Halifax account, overall all total £5,000  Her total col payments was £1,550.. She spends £2,000 in her TSB account so is left with zero in that account. The TSB account is the account the COL payments went into. She still has £3,000 in her other account. 

Her overall total in savings and capital never dropped below £3,000. She is considered by DWP to still have her £1,550 Col payments. It is irrelevant which account she was paid her COL payments  into. It's her overall savings and capital which is taken into account. 

I would say it's irrelevant what account it was paid into.
There is no provision with UC to class capital separately. For example if a person has £5k capital it doesn't matter if it's cash or shares it's all treated the same.
There is nothing like LIFO or FIFO in UC Law.

blackstar

I set up a child Saver account for obviously my child. However  I do have access to it easily as and when. I am guessing that would not be disregarded?

Also my wife pays into a private pension though her work. It appears on her payslip. I think its taken out of her pay..not sure if it is taxed etc. Presume it is. Is that taken into account for UC purposes as capital?

I've heard people have pension pots that they pay into while on UC and it doesn't affect it? Is that true.

huckster

HillStreetBlues said:

blackstar said:

Do you think my example is correct?

For example. 

Sue has £2,000 in her TSB bank account and has £3,000 in her Halifax account, overall all total £5,000  Her total col payments was £1,550.. She spends £2,000 in her TSB account so is left with zero in that account. The TSB account is the account the COL payments went into. She still has £3,000 in her other account. 

Her overall total in savings and capital never dropped below £3,000. She is considered by DWP to still have her £1,550 Col payments. It is irrelevant which account she was paid her COL payments  into. It's her overall savings and capital which is taken into account. 

I would say it's irrelevant what account it was paid into.
There is no provision with UC to class capital separately. For example if a person has £5k capital it doesn't matter if it's cash or shares it's all treated the same.
There is nothing like LIFO or FIFO in UC Law.

Agree

 I can see DWP Decision Makers trying to tackle the COL argument, that capital has built up partly due to COL payments made several years ago.

There will be a volume of decisions related to this and I am sure there will be requirement for claimants to prove that their capital is still inflated by the COL payments. With claimants having to provide years of Bank Statements.

And claims will get closed because of capital of more than £16000 and mandatory reconsideration appeals will uphold original decisions. So this will end up with cases heading for Courts Tribunal to decide on. 

COL payments were paid due to increased costs most people were dealing with at the time. Therefore there will be a high level of scrutiny where disregard is being requested in 2025 or beyond.

HillStreetBlues

huckster said:

.

Agree

 I can see DWP Decision Makers trying to tackle the COL argument, that capital has built up partly due to COL payments made several years ago.

There will be a volume of decisions related to this and I am sure there will be requirement for claimants to prove that their capital is still inflated by the COL payments. With claimants having to provide years of Bank Statements.

And claims will get closed because of capital of more than £16000 and mandatory reconsideration appeals will uphold original decisions. So this will end up with cases heading for Courts Tribunal to decide on. 

COL payments were paid due to increased costs most people were dealing with at the time. Therefore there will be a high level of scrutiny where disregard is being requested in 2025 or beyond.

I agree with all that.
As like you say it was meant to cover extra costs at the time, I was surprised there wasn't either a set time (EG 31/12/25) or a set period (EG 2 years from payment) disregard when statue was made.
They of course could amend it in the future.

born_again

All the cost saving measures that are being proposed & here is a easy one.
COL no longer disregarded.
Hard for media or other groups to argue about. As they were paid to help people through hard times. Not be saved 🤷‍♀️