Housing Systems

It's time for a Tuesday Teaser! We're running an online workshop all about calculating the Managed Migration Transitional Element so we'll have one about that! The workshop will take place on Wednesday 12th March from 9:30am - 1pm and will cover everything you need to know to calculate the Transitional Element. It'll be packed full of useful examples and interaction with plenty of opportunity to ask questions. It costs just £85+vat per delegate! Find out more here - https://lnkd.in/ekW6yVYt On to the Teaser and this one's based on a query we received - Fiona moved onto UC from Income-Related ESA, Child Tax Credit and Housing Benefit after receiving her Migration Notice. She was being helped by a benefits adviser who encouraged her to ask for a breakdown of how her Transitional Element has been calculated to check that it's correct. When checking how the calculation was done the adviser notices that the DWP included a Low Disabled Child Element in her Indicative UC Amount. But Fiona's actual UC awards include a High Disabled Child Element as her son receives high rate care DLA. Fiona asked for a review of his DLA last year and was told that his award was increasing from mid to high rate care a couple of months before she claimed UC. Which of these statements is correct - A - There has definitely been a mistake. As her son was entitled to high rate care DLA on her Migration Day, her Indicative UC Amount should include a High Disabled Child Element B - The rate of Disabled Child Element included in her Indicative UC Amount depends on the rate she was receiving in Child Tax Credit. If Fiona failed to report the increase in DLA to HMRC in time, it's correct that the Low Disabled Child Element was used C - High rate care DLA means the claimant is entitled to a Low Disabled Child Element in CTC but a high Disabled Child Element in UC so there definitely hasn't been a mistake Remember - no one can see how you vote so give it a go and come back on Friday to see the answer.

Well done on the Tuesday Teaser this week! Let's have a look at the new case law. Dianna manage migrated onto UC from IR-ESA. She was in the WRA Group and receives Carer's Allowance for caring for her disabled son. On UC, she's entitled to a Transitional Element of £540 and a Carer Element (as well as other Elements not relevant to the case study). Her health has deteriorated and she requested a review of her Work Capability status. She's found to have an LCWRA and can have the Element included in her Maximum UC - but this will remove her Carer Element (as the same claimant cannot receive both). In the past, claimants in this situation have actually ended up receiving LESS UC after the LCWRA Element is added - because the addition of the LCWRA Element erodes the Transitional Element and the Carer Element is lost. But an Upper Tribunal judge has determined that this is discriminatory and so the DWP will need to change how they handle this situation. What the judge said is that the Transitional Element should actually be 'eroded' by the difference between the Carer Element and the LCWRA Element - this means that Dianna won't see an increase to her UC on having the LCWRA Element added - but she won't see a drop in UC entitlement as would have happened before. This decision was made on 29th January 2025 so any claimants with a Transitional Element who have the Carer Element replaced by the LCWRA Element after this date should make sure that their TE is only eroded by the difference.

A lot of effort goes into each of our conferences so it's always nice to look at the feedback afterwards and see that it was all worth it! The average rating for the day was 4.9/5 so we're very happy! Thanks to everyone who made the day such a success including our chair Peter Barker, workshop leaders Julia Service, Jane Crawford, Kirsty Boys, Rachel Service, Liam and Ruth! We also need to thank Lara and George from Inverclyde who gave a great talk about UC and complex needs! If you attended yesterday, thanks for coming and making the day such a success. If you didn't attend yesterday, maybe see you next time!

See the answer here - https://lnkd.in/eny9VqPn We're all very busy getting ready for our conference tomorrow which is all about Managed Migration and an important piece of case law that we've been waiting for has just been published! We're glad it came in time for us to give up-to-date information tomorrow but a bit more notice would have been nice! Let's have a Tuesday Teaser about the case law - Dianna manage migrated onto UC from IR-ESA. She was in the WRA Group and receives Carer's Allowance for caring for her disabled son. On UC, she's entitled to a Transitional Element of £540 and a Carer Element (as well as other Elements not relevant to the case study). Her health has deteriorated and she requested a review of her Work Capability status. She's found to have an LCWRA and can have the Element included in her Maximum UC - but this will remove her Carer Element (as the same claimant cannot receive both). In the past, claimants in this situation have actually ended up receiving LESS UC after the LCWRA Element is added - because the addition of the LCWRA Element erodes the Transitional Element and the Carer Element is lost. But an Upper Tribunal judge has determined that this is discriminatory and so the DWP will need to change how they handle this situation. What did the judge say should happen - A - no erosion when LCWRA Element is added B - no erosion if LCWRA Element replaces Carer Element C - if LCWRA Element replaces Carer Element, TE should only be eroded by the difference Remember - no one can see how you vote so give it a go and come back on Friday to see the correct answer!

We said the Friday Fun Quiz was going to be about lesser known LCW fact and the Tuesday Teaser has proven that there are some lesser known facts! If you want to learn more about UC and LCW, subscribers can come along to our Friday Fun Quiz at 3pm today! Get booked on here - https://lnkd.in/eZrqF6n Let's have a look at the Teaser - Gina and Ray are on Universal Credit. Gina has LCWRA and Ray works. Ray has increased their hours at work and the increased income has floated couple off UC. Gina is not entitled to NS-ESA. A few months later, Ray reduces their hours and the couple are entitled to UC. But will Gina still have LCWRA? As they have been floated off UC due to earnings, they will be able to make a 'rapid reclaim' if they become entitled again within 6 months. The Regs and Guidance say that if a claimant who was on UC with LCWRA makes a rapid reclaim AND their health condition / disability has not changed and they have not missed a WCA review, they can have the LCWRA included in their re-started award from the beginning (i.e., there is no need to have a WCA or serve the 'relevant period' again). However, if their earnings mean they are not entitled to UC for more than 6 months, the UC system will not retain their information and they would need to make a new claim for UC. As Morag Fraser pointed out in the comments, an important question is whether Gina is entitled to NS-ESA. If Gina was entitled to NS-ESA and this remained in payment, her period of LCWRA will have continued and she could have the LCWRA Element included in the award from the beginning of their UC claim. However, as Gina is not entitled to NS-ESA, if it has been over 6 months since their earnings floated them off UC, we believe that Gina will need to have a new WCA and serve a new 'relevant period' as it will be treated as brand new claim for UC. However, as she has not actually been found fit for work, there is definitely an argument that she should have LCWRA - we're just not exactly sure how she would argue it with the DWP!

January's over which means we have our February Friday Fun Quiz this week! It's looking at UC and the lesser known LCW facts so let's have a Tuesday Teaser about it! Our Fun Quizzes are free for subscribers and booking will open on Wednesday. Gina and Ray are on Universal Credit. Gina has LCWRA and Ray works. Ray has increased their hours at work and the increased income has floated couple off UC. Gina is not entitled to NS-ESA. A few months later, Ray reduces their hours and the couple are entitled to UC. But will Gina still have LCWRA? A - Yes, as she wasn't found fit Gina will still have LCWRA B - If they became entitled to UC again within 3 months of it ending C - If they became entitled to UC again within 6 months of it ending D -No, Gina will definitely need a new WCA Remember - no one can see how you vote so give it a go and come back on Friday to see the answer!

Well done if you got the Tuesday Teaser right this week - it was a tricky one! The migration of IR-ESA claimants over to UC will take up a lot of benefit advisers (and others) time over the coming year but there's still so many unknowns and so many things to think about to make sure claimants move onto UC in the best position possible. Our online conference on Wednesday 12th February is aimed at everyone who works with benefit claimants and will give a complete overview of what they need to know to maximise the claimant's income and ensure they move onto UC successfully. The day will be packed full of useful talks and workshops that will use real-life examples to illustrate where income can be maximised and pitfalls can be avoided. The conference costs just £125+vat per delegate (or book two delegates for £200+vat). Find out more here - https://lnkd.in/etXVgcVj Let's look at the answer to the Teaser - Olga (46) is receiving Income-Related ESA and Housing Benefit. She works for a day a week and earns £110. All her earnings are ignored for IR-ESA as they are 'permitted earnings'. But there are no 'permitted earnings' on UC. Olga has just received a Migration Notice. Initially we were worried that the DWP would ignore permitted earnings completely when calculating the Transitional Element and claimants like Olga (who have 'permitted earnings' above the UC Work Allowance) would end up worse off on UC. The DWP have clarified that where a claimant has 'permitted earnings', these will be taken into account when the DWP calculate their Transitional Element - so they should not be made worse off. However, we are still unclear on where the DWP will get the information about how much the claimant earns to use in the TE calculation. We have asked but haven't got an answer yet. If anyone sees an example where a claimant with 'permitted earnings' over the Work Allowance claims UC, we'd be very grateful to know how their TE was calculated!

It's time for a Tuesday Teaser! We're busy preparing for our next conference which is all about Managed Migration and IR-ESA claimants so let's have a Teaser about that! Our online conference will be a day jam-packed with useful information and case studies. It'll equip you with all the knowledge you need to support IR-ESA claimants onto UC through the Managed Migration process. Find out more here - https://lnkd.in/etXVgcVj On to the Teaser - Olga (46) is receiving Income-Related ESA and Housing Benefit. She works for a day a week and earns £110. All her earnings are ignored for IR-ESA as they are 'permitted earnings'. But there are no 'permitted earnings' on UC. Olga has just received a Migration Notice. Which of these statements are correct? A - There is a Transitional Protection for ESA claimants that transfers the 'permitted earnings' rules to UC for the first year of their claim B - Earnings below the Work Allowance are ignored on UC. Earnings above this will reduce the UC award but the Transitional Element should compensate for this. C - Earnings below the Work Allowance are ignored on UC. Earnings above this will reduce the UC award. There is no Transitional Protection to help. Remember - no one can see how you vote so give it a go and come back on Friday to see how you've done!

Most people got this week's Tuesday Teaser correct! If you want to learn more about UC back payments, what should happen and what can go wrong, come along to our webinar on 22nd January for just £45+vat per delegate! Find out more here - https://lnkd.in/e2R2-QqZ Let's have a look at the Teaser - Sue gets UC and was found to have an LCW a few years ago. Nine months ago she requested a review of her work capability status. She has just received the decision and has been found to have an LCWRA. From which Assessment Period will the LCWRA Element be included in her UC award? There are two questions that need answering. Firstly, is it the date of the request for the WCA or the date of the decision that matters? It's the date of the request! Decisions can take a long time and it wouldn't be fair to keep claimants waiting. No matter when the decision is made, it takes affect from the MAP in which the WCA was requested. Secondly, does Sue have to serve a 'relevant period' before the LCWRA Element is added to her UC award? No she doesn't because she already has an LCW. There is no 'relevant period' when a claimant switches from LCW to LCWRA. So, the LCWRA should be included in Sue's UC from the MAP in which she requested the WCA and she should receive this as a back payment.

Could a Mixed Age Couple get MORE UC if they delay their claim? Mixed Age Couples are a notoriously tricky area when it comes to benefits. But a long standing issue has been solved by new amending Regulations. What was the issue? Where the older member of a couple is the main claimant of IR-ESA, this IR-ESA (and any Housing Benefit) ends if they turn State Pension age. To continue receiving financial support, they need to make a claim for UC. But when they make that claim for UC there is no ESA in payment so their LCW decision cannot be transferred. There was some Upper Tribunal case law published on 29th November 2023 which said that this was unfair. And the DWP have published some Regs which will fix this issue from 27th January 2025. We explain the fix in our article available here - https://lnkd.in/dkmAqyZb But what about couples who's ESA has already been ended? They can only benefit from the new Regs if they delay their claim for UC until 27th January - and from some couples this could be very worthwhile! We've put together a flowchart to help advisers work out if it could be worth a couple delaying a claim. It's linked in the article.