Mixed Age Couple ESA to UC – Transitional Protection Con Forcing into poverty

als6789

I am a pensioner and part of a mixed aged couple where my wife is under pensionable age and is disabled and unable to work. I am my wife’s carer (min 35 hrs per week). We currently receive ESA and now received our letter for managed transition to UC. The con that will force us into poverty is the “Transitional Protection”. The proof is in the numbers.

Current ESA weekly amounts:
Personal Allowance £144.65
Support Group £48.50
Pensioner £153.45
Carers £46.80
Total Weekly £393.00 – Per Month £1,703.00
Less State Pension £997.75 per month. Net ESA £705.25

The UC entitlement at migration provides monthly amounts of:
Standard Allowance £628.10
Carers £201.68
Disability £423.27
Total Monthly £1,253.05
Transitional Protection £449.95 (brings total to £1,703.00)Less State Pension £997.75 per month. Net UC at transition £705.25

The con that forces my wife and I further into poverty, as all other mixed aged couples where they are unable to work due to age and caring for partner on one part and disability on the other is you will never receive any more than the £1,703.00 each month despite pensions increasing at say 2.5% (triple lock) and UC increasing at say 1.7% (April 2025 increase). In fact, net UC every month will reduce each April because every annual increase in UC will reduce the Transitional Protection by the same amount until it’s reduced to zero.

The bottom line is UC entitlement increases, Transitional Protection reduces by a like amount. Pension increases but is deducted in full so we will never receive a penny more than £1,703.00 until in my case 2035 when my wife reaches retirement age and she receives her state pension. So today £1,703.00 will buy food and pay bills totalling £1,703.00, but in 2035 the same food and bills would cost £2,075.96 making us £372.96 poorer every single month, or £4,475.52 in that single year. This shortfall builds every single year, in our case from April 2026.

I have spreadsheets supporting the calculations, which includes comparisons between ESA and UC over this period. I understood that UC is a working age benefit and I believe it is not fit for purpose for Mixed Age Couples and discriminates against pensioners because of there age and discriminates against disabled.

It is frightening what is happening and I have no answer to it other that fight this clear discrimination against us and other Mixed Age Couples. What are peoples views and are there any solicitors or barristers on the forum that can give an opinion or advice on how my wife and I can fight this. I did think the Equality Act might be relevant.

born_again

Does you wife not get PIP? Could be worth applying for.

What about LCWRA part of UC @ £423.27

itsthelittlethings

I think you’re wrong, because UC will increase.

itsthelittlethings

And yes, PIP and LCWRA for a person who needs a carer are a very good idea.

Spoonie_Turtle

itsthelittlethings said:

I think you’re wrong, because UC will increase.

It will but transitional protection will erode just as they say in their post.  So in cash terms their benefit will stay the same, but in buying power it'll reduce until UC meets the amount they're receiving and then they start getting increases with inflation again.

Newcad

Transitional Protections always erode in that way as the benefit increases, they always have done.

Or did you think that the Migration to UC was the first to include a TP?

The last major migration to include a Transitional amount was the migration of Incapacity Benefit and Income Support (on health grounds) into ESA.
There are still some people who still get a TA in their ESA, even now 10-15 years later their TA hasn't fully eroded yet.
In fact there are provisions in the UC migration legislation to include any remaining ESA TA in the UC TE.

Is the erosion of a TA/TE to eventually get you to the standard benefit rate, the same as a new claimant, fair?
Answer- That depends on your point of view.

Try asking it the other way round- If you were a new claimant would you think it fair for someone in exactly the same circumstances to get more than you simply because they had (initially) claimed before you did?
Because that's what happens with a TA/TE.

So we have two groups of disgruntled claimants:
Those with a TA/TE who see it eroding and call that unfair, and
Those with the standard benefit  who see others in the same circumstances getting more money then they do and call that unfair.
I know which group I'd rather be in.

In the end what you think is fair or not about TA/TE is going to depend which one of those claimant groups you are in.
And I doubt that I or anyone else will change that opinion.