UC: Do I need to report an increase in my work pension?

NedS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81982190#Comment_81982190

I think the gross part is often just missed, so agents often record net values by mistake, especially as most other things on UC are considered net. Not helped by the fact the claimant is naturally going to report their net pension income that hits their bank account each month, not the gross amount should any tax have been deducted. As you say, H5004 is clear that there can be no deductions for income tax for retirement pension income.

DWP have a very clear contract with HMRC what the RTI data can and cannot be used for. Why that contact only includes earned income and not unearned income may be because of the reasons you state, I don't know.

Robbie64

I sent a message via my Journal to report the increase in my civil service pension and got the following reply back:

Hi Robert,

The system should automatically be updated with any changes as the pension service will usually provide this data into the income feed for claimants.

I don't know if the agent is correct but at least I've reported the change should there be any problems.

NedS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81982986#Comment_81982986

I think they have misunderstood how the system works.

I would keep an eye on it on your next Statement and message them again if the deductions are not correct/have not been updated for the increased pension amount.

Yamor

Sounds like they think you are reporting an increase to your state pension.

Robbie64

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81983533#Comment_81983533

That's what I was thinking. Should I contact UC again via the Journal or should I just wait until my next UC statement is produced after 20/05/26 and if the CSP that's been deducted is for the old amount, report it again?

Yamor

I suppose there's no harm in putting a note now on your journal to clarify that you were talking about a workplace pension, and not the state pension, and ask if they still don't require details from you.

Robbie64

Thanks @Yamor, I've send a reply as per your suggestion.

CosmoChic

I guess the good thing is at least with a journal, you have proof you've told them!!

All I have are copies of the many, many letters I've submitted, signed-for confirmations, along with notes of with whom I spoke, and when I called to (repeatedly) advise them of the change.

Only for them at some point, a few months down the line, to write to me in curt terms to tell me HMRC have advised them of the increase to my OccPen.

Those curt terms are rapidly followed by a snidey note reminding me it is my responsibility to tell them of any changes and they will be advising Debt Management about my (totally unnecessary!) overpayment.

I loathe ESA with a passion I find frightening. 😕

Robbie64

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81985075#Comment_81985075

It;s usually because ESA have such a backlog of work (or at least did, when ESA included the means tested version) that it was taking weeks for letters and phone calls to be actioned with the feed from HMRC being dealt with first, triggering the snarky compliance letters. I had problems in the same way as yourself.

Robbie64

I sent a message via Payments, as above, to clarify that I was reporting an increase in my workplace pension and not the state pension. I also asked for clarification about whether I should be reporting a change to my workplace pension. As of last night, I've not had a reply. I'm fast coming to the conclusion that entries / queries in the Journal are being largely ignored by the DWP.

I assume there's just too much to do by the case manager or whoever reads the entry but a simple reply wouldn't go amiss. The DWP keep telling claimants of the need to report changes, but this behvaiour would be encouraged better if there was some sort of response to the message. Maybe there should be some sort of feature which can indicate when a message has been read. At least then I would know it simply hasn't been ignored!