Another Deprivation Of Assets question!

poppy12345

The old contributions based ESA no longer exists, it’s been replaced with NsESA. NsJSA is for those who are looking for work, you are not looking for work so it wouldn’t apply to you. 

Clearly NsESA can’t be paid after 1 year due to the time limit unless placed into the Support Group. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-style-employment-and-support-allowance#how-long-youll-get-esa-for

Altior

poppy12345 said:

The old contributions based ESA no longer exists, it’s been replaced with NsESA. NsJSA is for those who are looking for work, you are not looking for work so it wouldn’t apply to you. 

Clearly NsESA can’t be paid after 1 year due to the time limit unless placed into the Support Group. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-style-employment-and-support-allowance#how-long-youll-get-esa-for

Yep, however it appears it can go beyond the 365 days in those specific circumstances outlined on the gvt website. Presumably due to the 2020 HC ruling. I haven't got the inclination to hunt down the ruling now, but I assume it's along the lines of having no income waiting for the appeal (which is not in your gift).

And it also states:

All other claimants have to go through the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) process before they can appeal. ESA is not paid during the MR process. If these individuals do appeal they will not be paid ESA pending their appeal being heard. 

In my opinion, it could easily state pending the appeal up to 365 days from the initial application. However there is no such distinction. 

It could simply be very badly worded, which I am used to from HMRC to be honest! I really need to read the law that correlates with the introduction of PPA, not today though!

poppy12345

Unfortunately NsESA can’t be pad after 1 year unless in the Support Group. 

My advice for now is concentrate on the WCA. Anyway, I’m out of here now before my head explodes. My health can’t cope which is why I rarely come online now. 

Altior

Grumpy_chap said:

This thread has really evolved as it has progressed.

There were two, focused questions initially for which the DoC answers were quite straightforward.  The limits on pension contribution restricted by earned income was also covered:

Altior said:

Can I:

a) contribute to a private pension out of my ESA (unearned income) and cash interest income. 

and, or;

b) contribute to a private pension out of my existing savings, without it being treated as DOC ahead of a UC application. 

A note would be that I do have earned income from the beginning of the tax year, so would be eligible for private pension contributions where the tax can be reclaimed.

The thread now appears to be broadening the scope to essentially asking "what can I do to reduce my capital so that I get UC and it is not DoC?"

Well, by definition, "Deprivation of capital is when you knowingly reduce or transfer elsewhere your savings or other capital to get, or increase your award of Universal Credit. This may be before making a claim or during an existing claim."
https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/deprivation-of-savings-and-other-capital-universal-credit

Essentially, given the clearly stated objective apparent from the thread, anything the OP does to reduce capital will be DoC.

You missed an important bit in my opinion:

 essentially asking "what can I do within the rules to reduce my capital so that I get UC and it is not DoC?"

All/any input is however, welcome.

For what it's worth there are dozens of threads on here along similar lines, with plenty of advice around how to stay within the rules, but I could only find ones related to pension contributions specifically, being promoted to increase UC income. Some posters interpreted that as encouraging UC recipients to reduce their net income (encouraged by the government). So I don't think my hypothetical scenario was much different, but as I say I couldn't find anything explicit.

Altior

For anyone interested in the PPA chat, I found this 

122._New_Style_ESA_only_claims-Guidance_V7.0.pdf

Payment Pending Appeal Payment Pending Appeal is when a claimant is found fit for work following a WCA and appeals against the decision. They will continue to receive New Style ESA at the LCW rate if they have provided a Statement of Fitness for work declaring they are not fit for work. See New Style Employment and Support Allowance only claims: Spotlight.  

I don't know what Spotlight means !

Grumpy_chap

Altior said:

 essentially asking "what can I do within the rules to reduce my capital so that I get UC and it is not DoC?"

If that is the simple question you wish to have answered, you had a simple answer in post 8 on page 1:

NedS said:

From a tax perspective, as discussed above you can contribute what you earn each tax year, subject to some higher limits.

From a benefits perspective, what you are talking about is reducing your overall capital by making extra pension contributions for the purposes of claiming means-tested benefits, and that could certainly be viewed as deprivation of capital. I believe there is previous case law in this area where this has been ruled to be DoC.

Paying off debt is allowed and this should certainly be done, especially where the debt interest is higher than that you can earn on those savings.

Unfortunately, you did not like that simple answer so spent a further 7 pages trying to challenge the outcome and find a way that allows you keep stoozing, hence not clearing the debts, but still get capital down (which may not be wise as if the stoozing savings go into pension fund there are no liquid savings to clear the stoozing once the stoozing credit becomes unavailable).

I guess, really, this comes down to whether the income generated from stoozing exceeds the potential income that might be received via means-tested benefits.  
Should you decide to claim means-tested benefits, you may find some challenges:

Altior said:

If I do eventually do a UC claim (within the rules), I have at least six current accounts, and at this point twenty savings accounts. 

I think many people (including me) would simply find that overwhelming to deal with and manage.  I am certain that any assessment in relation to UC may find that confusing and, potentially, conclude that it is overly complicated for the purpose of making income and capital obscure.  There can be much to be said for the simple life.

Everything that has been said in the thread seems to have been said multiple times.  You don't like the answers so follow things around a loop to get back to the same questions again, perhaps hoping for a different answer.  I believe it was Einstein who was credited with saying “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Spoonie_Turtle

Altior said:

For anyone interested in the PPA chat, I found this 

122._New_Style_ESA_only_claims-Guidance_V7.0.pdf

Payment Pending Appeal Payment Pending Appeal is when a claimant is found fit for work following a WCA and appeals against the decision. They will continue to receive New Style ESA at the LCW rate if they have provided a Statement of Fitness for work declaring they are not fit for work. See New Style Employment and Support Allowance only claims: Spotlight.  

I don't know what Spotlight means !

I would say it's worth bearing in mind that officially, anything to do with ESA assumes that WCAs happen within the first 13 weeks, the waiting period for the Support Group component.  Which in theory gives plenty of time for an appeal to be heard, before entitlement runs out.

I can't comment on this specific mechanism, whether it takes into account the reality of WCAs even taking longer than 12 months in some cases, but I'm just saying to bear in mind that potential context.


Also re: people not having an income whilst challenging a FfW decision, if someone is only claiming ESA it usually means they are not entitled to UC due to having other financial means.  So while it may be true there is no consistent income, the underlying assumption would be they can use the financial assets that are barring their eligibility for means-tested benefits, to live on.

Altior

I get where you are coming from, but out of the last 7 threads I have started on MSE, 6 have been related to benefits! If I started a new thread each time the query slightly differed, the B board would get even more fed up with me than they are already. If they are already bored with me, they know where not to look by now

Persistence, I guess bordering on very stubborn are symptoms of my MH. It's just me really, and I don't give up easily. I like being me though, I'm definitely an oddball and fully embrace it.

Yes to all, stoozing is great fun and I have been doing it for many years. But it's not for everyone. It's not just stoozing really but switching bonuses, pot bonuses et al. For example HL were offering a £200 JL voucher for a £10K SIPP switch. Knowing my situation this would come in very handy if I ever need a new washing machine, fridge, dw etc.

Now yes, with how my life has evolved over the last 18 months or so, stoozing is not very compatible with means tested benefits. It's extremely difficult to decide which horse is best. And I have no shame at all in trying to manage my affairs in such a way that would be beneficial to me, without committing fraud or crossing the line. It's the system and the system has many perverse incentives and disincentives, but here is not the place to debate them all. I am quite happy to step aside when there are people much more informed than I, which remains the case with the benefits ecosystem. So I am leaning on experts for the best strategy, given my scenario. And I know that most regs would prefer it if I decontaminated stoozing from my affairs. For me it would be tantamount to getting rid of a pet dog. 

I genuinely appreciate everyone's input. I like being challenged and take nothing personally. 

Altior

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Altior said:

For anyone interested in the PPA chat, I found this 

122._New_Style_ESA_only_claims-Guidance_V7.0.pdf

Payment Pending Appeal Payment Pending Appeal is when a claimant is found fit for work following a WCA and appeals against the decision. They will continue to receive New Style ESA at the LCW rate if they have provided a Statement of Fitness for work declaring they are not fit for work. See New Style Employment and Support Allowance only claims: Spotlight.  

I don't know what Spotlight means !

I would say it's worth bearing in mind that officially, anything to do with ESA assumes that WCAs happen within the first 13 weeks, the waiting period for the Support Group component.  Which in theory gives plenty of time for an appeal to be heard, before entitlement runs out.

I can't comment on this specific mechanism, whether it takes into account the reality of WCAs even taking longer than 12 months in some cases, but I'm just saying to bear in mind that potential context.


Also re: people not having an income whilst challenging a FfW decision, if someone is only claiming ESA it usually means they are not entitled to UC due to having other financial means.  So while it may be true there is no consistent income, the underlying assumption would be they can use the financial assets that are barring their eligibility for means-tested benefits, to live on.

Thanks, yes it did make sense to me that I could apply for UC before April if things didn't progress further with the WCA. So it's not necessarily that it goes beyond the 365 days, but I should get benefit income even if I am found fit to work. 

At that point I would be under the UC umbrella. I don't expect to be found fit to work hopefully, but in my head it reduces the gamble. As if I am made LCW, UC continues after the CB ESA would have ended. I would get far less benefits in the short term due to capital, but still in the system. If they find me fit to work and I lost an appeal, no idea what I would do then. I suppose at some point I'll need to trust in the system. 

Yamor

On the specific question about the need for an MR if a year has passed before the decision is made, see Example 1 in para. 42813 here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bde4d589b4a58925ac6d33/dmgch42.pdf

It would be an interesting question if the decision is made within a year, but then a year has passed before the appeal is actually submitted. I'm pretty sure no MR would be needed, as it doesn't sound right to suggest the requirements could change depending on the precise date the appeal is submitted.