UC/ID Verify

itsthelittlethings

HillStreetBlues said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I am surprised at this because I can’t find any mention of an exemption for health or disability reasons.

Always best to go directly to source.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/8

Cases where the minimum age is 16

8.—(1) For the basic condition in section 4(1)(a) of the Act (at least 18 years old), the minimum age is 16 years old where a person—

(a)has limited capability for work;

(b)is awaiting an assessment under Part 5 to determine whether the person has limited capability for work and has a statement given F1... in accordance with the Medical Evidence Regulations which provides that the person is not fit for work;

(c)has regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person;

(d)is responsible for a child;

(e)is a member of a couple the other member of which is responsible for a child or a qualifying young person (but only where the other member meets the basic conditions in section 4 of the Act);

(f)is pregnant, and it is 11 weeks or less before her expected week of confinement, or was pregnant and it is 15 weeks or less since the date of her confinement; or

(g)is without parental support (see paragraph (3)).

That doesn’t say that they are exempt from the legal requirement to be in education or training. The law has recently changed. I was just wondering if the fact that the OP is saying their child is not in education or training could potentially be the reason for the refusal.

HillStreetBlues

itsthelittlethings said:

HillStreetBlues said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I am surprised at this because I can’t find any mention of an exemption for health or disability reasons.

Always best to go directly to source.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/8

Cases where the minimum age is 16

8.—(1) For the basic condition in section 4(1)(a) of the Act (at least 18 years old), the minimum age is 16 years old where a person—

(a)has limited capability for work;

(b)is awaiting an assessment under Part 5 to determine whether the person has limited capability for work and has a statement given F1... in accordance with the Medical Evidence Regulations which provides that the person is not fit for work;

(c)has regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person;

(d)is responsible for a child;

(e)is a member of a couple the other member of which is responsible for a child or a qualifying young person (but only where the other member meets the basic conditions in section 4 of the Act);

(f)is pregnant, and it is 11 weeks or less before her expected week of confinement, or was pregnant and it is 15 weeks or less since the date of her confinement; or

(g)is without parental support (see paragraph (3)).

That doesn’t say that they are exempt from the legal requirement to be in education or training. The law has recently changed. I was just wondering if the fact that the OP is saying their child is not in education or training could potentially be the reason for the refusal.

Are you talking about an OT general education question rather than an UC one?
 

itsthelittlethings

HillStreetBlues said:

itsthelittlethings said:

HillStreetBlues said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I am surprised at this because I can’t find any mention of an exemption for health or disability reasons.

Always best to go directly to source.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/8

Cases where the minimum age is 16

8.—(1) For the basic condition in section 4(1)(a) of the Act (at least 18 years old), the minimum age is 16 years old where a person—

(a)has limited capability for work;

(b)is awaiting an assessment under Part 5 to determine whether the person has limited capability for work and has a statement given F1... in accordance with the Medical Evidence Regulations which provides that the person is not fit for work;

(c)has regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person;

(d)is responsible for a child;

(e)is a member of a couple the other member of which is responsible for a child or a qualifying young person (but only where the other member meets the basic conditions in section 4 of the Act);

(f)is pregnant, and it is 11 weeks or less before her expected week of confinement, or was pregnant and it is 15 weeks or less since the date of her confinement; or

(g)is without parental support (see paragraph (3)).

That doesn’t say that they are exempt from the legal requirement to be in education or training. The law has recently changed. I was just wondering if the fact that the OP is saying their child is not in education or training could potentially be the reason for the refusal.

Are you talking about an OT general education question rather than an UC one?
 

I was wondering if this might be the reason for refusal.

poppy12345

itsthelittlethings said:

HillStreetBlues said:

itsthelittlethings said:

I am surprised at this because I can’t find any mention of an exemption for health or disability reasons.

Always best to go directly to source.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/8

Cases where the minimum age is 16

8.—(1) For the basic condition in section 4(1)(a) of the Act (at least 18 years old), the minimum age is 16 years old where a person—

(a)has limited capability for work;

(b)is awaiting an assessment under Part 5 to determine whether the person has limited capability for work and has a statement given F1... in accordance with the Medical Evidence Regulations which provides that the person is not fit for work;

(c)has regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person;

(d)is responsible for a child;

(e)is a member of a couple the other member of which is responsible for a child or a qualifying young person (but only where the other member meets the basic conditions in section 4 of the Act);

(f)is pregnant, and it is 11 weeks or less before her expected week of confinement, or was pregnant and it is 15 weeks or less since the date of her confinement; or

(g)is without parental support (see paragraph (3)).

That doesn’t say that they are exempt from the legal requirement to be in education or training. The law has recently changed. I was just wondering if the fact that the OP is saying their child is not in education or training could potentially be the reason for the refusal.

The law for England and education has applied for quite sometime. This is a completely different thing to UC law. 

As has been mentioned quite a few times because they have a health condition they can claim UC. Some people with health conditions are simply unable to continue with education. 

itsthelittlethings

If young people stay in education with a disability they have a choice of whether to remain on their parent’s claim or make a claim in their own right. I believe this may be what the regulations above are referring to. In the rare cases where the LA accepts a young person does not have to stay in education or training I am wondering if there is another process you may need to go through to claim Universal Credit.

I’ll stop now because I think everyone here is just speculating.

huckster

There has always been confusion regarding benefits and those under 18.  And I have seen quite a few UC claims closed in error for those under 18.

Pope needs to make a new claim and find out why someone in local Job Centre or UC Service Centre thinks their Son is not entitled. 

pope

huckster said:

There has always been confusion regarding benefits and those under 18.  And I have seen quite a few UC claims closed in error for those under 18.

Pope needs to make a new claim and find out why someone in local Job Centre or UC Service Centre thinks their Son is not entitled. 

Do you think the local job centre will be able to tell me the reason behind why UC thinks my sons not entitled to UC? Of course I'll have to get my appointeeship verified first otherwise there not going to speak to me.

huckster

Yes of course they have to explain as they should have recorded the reason for their decision.

I thought you said you were already recorded as appointee on PIP claim?

If so, DWP will have you recorded as appointee.

pope

huckster said:

Yes of course they have to explain as they should have recorded the reason for their decision.

I thought you said you were already recorded as appointee on PIP claim?

If so, DWP will have you recorded as appointee.

Yes I am already recorded as the appointee on pip claim. The reason I said verify be as appointee is because when I phoned the UC phone line they said they cant speak to me as I'm not down as appointee on the claim. 

huckster

Well Job Centre can verify appointee, if already noted on PIP.