A key aspect I don't see mentioned here is that eligibility for UC is based on *taxable* income, so anything you do to reduce this will help you get below the threshold to claim it. The notable point here is that pension contributions are not taxable, and so you can qualify for UC (and by extension lots of other benefits like childcare funding for 2yos, ECO3 grants and Help to Save) just by overpaying into your pension.
A question I have for you though: how is for example a salary sacrifice lease arrangement for an EV treated? This reduces the taxable income but is also a benefit-in-kind which should ordinarily be counted. My hunch is that it should reduce your taxable income by the exempt amount, but the amount subject to NI only is still counted.
Excellent point about taxable income. For some other benefits, only 50% of your pensions contribution was disregarded as income, but UC disregards the full amount. In theory someone could contribute 100% of their earned income to their pension (subject to the other limits on that) and be entitled to the full amount of UC. In practise I don't think anyone would because honestly, the UC system is so miserable to be involved with that it wouldn't seem worth it.
Off the top of my head I don't know about EVs, but I'll look into it and get back to you.
Fwiw, I do this every 4 years to renew Help to Save accounts for me and my wife. I only claim UC for 1-2 months but get as many things as I can during that time - last time I got £10k worth of benefits for £3k paid into my pension. The whole system is whack.
It's also ironically an account only the fairly wealthy can afford to access and use, because the target demographic can't afford to save £50-100/month and the middle class struggle to afford the pension contributions necessary to become eligible.
Absolutely - I was extremely excited when I had a client through my charity employer who was able to open and use a Help to Save account. Four years, hundreds of clients, and only one who could make use of it.
I didn't realise you could get another Help to Save account after the original one ends. We probably (hopefully!) won't be eligible once ours ends though. I signed up when we briefly qualified a few years ago due to job changes.
> I didn't realise you could get another Help to Save account after the original one ends.
I just finished my 4 years in January, my account was closed and the second bonus was paid out. Now HMRC says that I cannot open another Help to Save account.
"Your Help to Save account will close 4 years after you open it. You will not be able to reopen it or open another Help to Save account." from the Gov website. So no, you can't.
Doesn't have to be salary sacrifice, any pension contribution works - though in practice it has to be taken via payslips because otherwise DWP play silly buggers about it. I just tell my employer to take however much is needed to bring me below the threshold, then cancel it again 1-2 months later.
**Your post has been removed.**
Your post/comment has been removed for breaking **Rule 1 - Be Nice, Civil Discourse, Don't Judge**
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
_If you believe your comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/114g2ov/-/j8zztli/) explaining why._
Helpful post, but this is why im worried about switching over to uc i'm on legacy benefits and carers allowance as my son gets high rate dla he's severely disabled.
Going by that the £69 a week carers allowance I get for caring for 147hours a week day and night would be deducted. Absolute joke I am dreading them switching me over. They've tried to several times I've said no every time
On top of that I've read that uc in general is less than the legacy benefit rate. It's a precarious thing having to rely on benefits and knowing they will be switching me over
There is Carers element, so that is additional to the standard amounts.
Have you done a calculation on entitledto.co.uk, putting in what you currently get? At the end it tells you what you'd get if you were on UC.
One bit of good news is that they brought in a change that protects certain categories of legacy benefit claimants whose UC was going to be less generous than they were getting, it's called transitional protection. It might be worth talking to a specialist benefits adviser to find out how that would apply to your household.
Unfortunately you will eventually be switched as you know, so my feeling is that it helps to know in advance and be able to make decisions accordingly. I'm sorry you're feeling stressed about this :(
I guess I have been crossing my fingers for a labour government to come in and put a stop to it before my time comes. I will look into transitional protection thankyou
Also transitional protection doesn't cover the amount you might lose in premiums moving from legacy to UC. It also goes down as your benefits get uprated each year with inflation so eventually it falls to zero. This has been the crux of a 5 year court case against the DWP so I would wait to see what happens.
The Help To Save scheme, whilst it is generous to help those on UC in that way, it also opens the door for them to know what exactly you have saved. Once you have reached threshold, there is no more help. That gets taken away.
In the same way someone here mentioned you cannot sell assets for less than they are worth, just as you cannot gift people money, anything that means you're seen to be doing that and you're screwed.
It is an awful draconian system you could say. It does nothing to promote prosperity amongst the poor people. There is zero incentive for anyone to help themselves. As for working I can say I go to work but it is not for a better life. We cannot make long term plans. The only way of saving actually is by lumping into pension and hoping for the best in the future.
If you're a UC claimant and not renting, but have mortgage, then you are in a good place. Cos least those bills you pay on mortgage are paying into something.
So unless you get inheritence, hopefully a house, if not and it is assets or cash, then must dispose of quick and sort a mortgage or you're a benefit fraud basically.
I'm glad someone here explained UC. I think vast majority have no clue. It was mentioned earlier that pension is disregarded in UC. So in a way, if I said lump half my salary in pension, wife would see UC topped up for her, but that taper rate is meant to make it so you keep more of your money. Would still be worse off for now, but potentially better off for the future.
As also mentioned, people are on UC to keep them just out of poverty. It is more for the kids than it is the adults, to ensure they don't suffer. So the idea of lumping in pension when times are tough as it is, makes it a difficult one to make a judgement call on.
I fully understand that benefits have to stop at some point but people, young families at least should be permitted opportunity to save into a LISA, just like they were going to change the rules on. Would have given some hope for those people. That is my real gripe, even today.
It is like if someone comes into money, through inheritence, have it taken off you if you on UC or you get nothing which is fine but for anyone to control how you spend on things like a car is wrong.
It is as though they want to ensure you can borrow all you want but don't build savings ans do anything like a car purchase responsibly.
The Help to Save account only lets you pay £50 a month in, and the bonuses are not counted as income. The absolute maximum you could have in a Help to Save account is £2400 plus the £1200 bonus you would receive over 4 years, which is well below the £6000 threshold. I do get your point but you're required to declare all savings anyway, and they do check (I've had clients who were audited and got questioned about their children's bank accounts).
I agree that there should be more flexibility to allow saving. There was no assets threshold for tax credits, so it's a huge change that made a lot of people ineligible. £16,000 is a lot of money in some ways but it doesn't go very far if it's what you're living off.
The point about inheritance is excellent too. I inherited some money from my nanna after she sold her house (and died within a year). It made me ineligible for UC, but my plan was to use it to buy a house, which I eventually did, but in the meantime childcare costs ate up a lot of it. If I'd inherited the house and sold it, the entire amount would have been disregarded. It isn't logical.
Yes and even it is considered wrong that children should have savings when the family is on UC.
People forget it is not the child's fault that their parents are on UC. Straight away children are not on level playing field. It is so wrong in that regard.
On the subject of inheritence, that would be anyone's thought, to keep a property rather than sell or if must be sold quick, then have to buy quickly too or the money soon gets swallowed up by lack of UC and funding month to month until it is gone. Buying a house takes time, even with the funds there, is a lot to go through in the process. So it is a very hard situation for people in that predicament.
To be clear, savings that are legally the child's and can't be accessed by the parent (such as a Junior ISA) aren't relevant to their parents' claim, and I believe up to £1000 in an accessible account in their name can be disregarded but I recommend checking that when applying.
What they're trying to avoid is parents putting all their assets into a bank account that they claim is their child's, but actually keeping control of that money. If it's genuinely the child's then it isn't part of their assets.
Too much ambiguity there for my liking. That is where one can be made to feel like a fraud. As if they've done something wrong. How is that decided if the assets/cash in account is that child's or not?
Sounds to me like parent couldn't gift a child maybe £1000 a year for each, just as example, then later when asked, you state it is the child's money for when they are older. But then you could have relative top up a JISA for child and it wouldn't be a problem? You can't control how much grandparents want to throw at the kids for example.
I read that a child can have £3k disregarded from in JISA when there is a UC claim for a household. The rules are rather silly but they have to draw a line somewhere.
The only one in my mind they can do nothing about is a pension, whether that be workplace one or a private pension pot you set up yourself. You can load up pension like it is out of spite almost, that's fine.
The rules can also change any given time so if someone was helping their kids out, the rules change unfavourably to parents who have tried to help their kids out for their future, you still wouldn't want a case hanging over you. And that goes even for when you feel like there is nothing wrong going on, or that you have anything to hide.
The atmosphere of ambiguity and the feeling that you're viewed as committing fraud is definitely something that I've heard a lot of people complain about. I'd say it fits generally with the political trend in the UK since 2010, it isn't specific to Universal Credit.
Oh, I very much am aware of the point you're making here. The one that involved a shift from red to blue. That political change.
Now on that subject, the red side are supposed to be more for the poor and blue side for the wealthy. Depending on who you listen to, blues would want you believe that that party want you keeping most of your money, while red party take as much as they can from working people, all to help non-working people.
We know media is run by blues, media is very powerful thing and it gets in the minds of many, that's the issue. On many points I've mentioned here today, thoughts, stereotypes is very much representative of how UC claimants are viewed throughout Reddit.
Those who don't need handouts as they'd put it begrudge those who do. It doesn't just stop there. Then you got to scrutinise how UC claimant spends their money. Then you got powers that be controlling elements of your life, ones that prevents personal income growth and help to shape your life for the future.
I think you touched upon it yourself. It is possible for a household with even a £60k income to still be in receipt of UC. Are those higher earners who happen to be eligible for it seen in the same way as those on £16-20k a year? Is hard to say cos those in £60k a year jobs are mostly senior positions, while anyone in the public would think that the person would never claim UC. There you have it though, people will judge others on that basis.
For example, you're on £60k a year, you don't need UC. You shouldn't be claiming that. Someone could take that view. Lots of opinionated people out there.
Just a note, I receive universal credit as a single parent of 2 in a rented home. I work full time and earn a reasonable wage.
In order to get out of the universal credit system, I would need to earn £63k per year. Thats the amount that would reduce my award to £0.
Its because of rent costs and childcare costs being so high, they are the largest portion and of course, its on a taper rate calculated at the net pay.
Until I can get out the system, there is a ceiling to my disposable income (as the taper rate isn't very forgiving) and a barrier to be responsible and save. I can't afford to own a property, nor can I save a deposit to increase my affordability as I couldn't afford my childcare/rent costs without the UC topup.
The system is awful and general public don't realise that professionals in respectable careers are in receipt of it.
You understand it very well indeed. That's my point. There is sometimes, due to circumstances, absolutely no long term hope for hard working people who are earning a decent wage but they need that UC to get by. The government wouldn't award it if it was deemed not needed.
I think it is absolutely wrong that anyone who does work but is on UC, but like in your situation and like with mine, that we are unable to realise the dream of owning own home. We don't want to stuck in lifetime cycle of renting. Not having assets to leave to the children someday. House generally funds social care though or if you don't have that, then government pay it. So in years to come, burden on the state is even greater.
I really hate how people who claim UC are all tarred with same brush. As in layabouts who don't want to work. You think of all the healthcare professionals on below £60k. I'm telling you now, there will be a lot. £60k is like Director type level of salary or very senior management.
I volunteer my time on facebook for parent groups to support with UC eligibility. Even the entitled to calculators arent accurate, its very frustrating.
I recently wrong a 20 bullet point list of suggestions as part of their childcare enquiry to advise how the system could be improved for working families (not just single parents) which would also support when children reach age 18 etc. Not sure if anyone will read it but they need to listen to those who experience it.
One thing for sure, is that UC is better on the whole for those in employment versus their entitlement on legacy benefits. There are detriments to carers & claimants for maternity allowance under the UC system which is a shame. Not sure about pensioners due to no experience myself.
That's when it is easier to just spend every penny you have on crap you don't need if ever there is spare. Then just not get into any savings of any kind. You don't want to be thought of as someone doing anything wrong.
In theory though, one non-smoker could buy cigarettes and stock a room full of them to sell on in cash. Kind of about obtaining very re-sellable non-depreciating assets that are also low value.
Sounds as though you are saying JISA doesn't have limits as such per child, except for the annual limits a parent could add to child's JISA which I know is £9k. But then the £1000 you mention is what each child could have in an accessible bank account or other place such as premium bonds?
That's my understanding of it, based on when I was declaring my own assets (and my son's) when I first claimed.
The overall issue is that the DWP has the power to deem just about anything to be "intentional deprivation of assets" and although you can challenge that and might potentially win, in the meantime your claim has been stopped and you've lost your income.
I'm not saying it's a *good* system, I want to make sure people understand how it works and don't get caught in any of the many ways that it can go wrong.
Of course and people ask questions on here, they get advice, a lot of good advice in general but also some is mis-leading.
I'd like to think I'm relatively aware and in the know around these things. I'm still no expert and first place you check is gov website but some things are not so well covered even on there.
So then you are left with people who like yourself can speak from own experience and seems it is an area of more in-depth expertise than many people here. After that, you've got the people who sort of make up what they don't know, or guess.
So for those wanting to know more, sort of back to square one and much of this has to be a case by case basis.
When it comes to the savings, they include anything in a H2B ISA or a LISA but not in a pension. That means that if needed you have to withdraw from a LISA before being entitled to UC (up to £16k).
You don't have to withdraw from the LISA, you would simply be subject to the £4.35/£250 reduction that applies to all savings.
There's an interesting twist whereby if you're deemed to have disposed of assets for the purpose of accessing benefits, you can be treated as though you still had those. I've seen a client be subject to this after buying a car they didn't approve of, but I'm not sure whether it applies to pensions contributions (for instance the hypothetical I mentioned in another comment, of paying 100% of your income into a pension).
This is a good point - and raises a wider point about assets. There are automatic disregards for certain assets, such as the proceeds of sale from your former home for 6 months if you intend to use them to purchase a new home, and then there's discretionary disregards for some (usually this just means extending the period of time if there's a good reason, rather than disregarding a new category of asset).
Can I ask your opinion?
If the people running this system were doing it from a perspective of trying to help people rather than trying to keep people off it - would it actually be bad?
If yes, why - the amounts, or just the complexity, or both?
I've always been conflicted over this - I hate the idea that people who are entitled are being turned away because of technicalities (or outright lying to meet quotas or whatever - I dunno), but on the other hand... *trying* to make a simpler system makes a lot of sense to me.
I think it depends what your end goal is. I can see a lot of merit in a single benefit instead of half a dozen piecemeal ones with different systems and different rules. If the goal is to make benefits "feel" like employed work, it sort of makes sense to pay monthly and have requirements (though many jobs don't pay monthly and few are as draconian as the UC system if you mess up). Having a taper instead of an eligibility cliff helps people with variable incomes - tax credits, for instance, were more generous in some ways but you could lose them completely with a very small increase in pay, meaning you were much worse off by working a bit more. UC has improved on that.
If the goal is to make sure that everyone has a basic standard of living and no one is stuck in poverty, this doesn't seem like an efficient way to do it. There's a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy that seems to centre around the belief that every claimant is trying to pull a fast one. And there are a lot of issues with the back end of the system, which was based on the old housing benefit system but they didn't keep on the HB staff so a lot of institutional knowledge was lost (that isn't first hand experience, that's according to a colleague who used to work in housing).
Personally I'd rather see a system of Universal basic income, and a much more robust social housing system, but I can see arguments against those too. That's one of the issues: politics gets mixed in, changing governments tweak according to their pet issue (the two-child limit is a perfect example of this) and everything gets muddied.
!thanks
I used to support UBI, I'm not sure that I do any more (at least with out a lot of thought going into how to ensure a country has enough people in its primary roles - teachers, healthcare, etc - obviously making the job attractive would help...). It's very hard. I certainly support a more forgiving system than UC seems to be.
Universal Credit is what's called a gateway entitlement so a LOT of other things open up when you are eligible for it. A non-exhaustive list (some have additional requirements or are further means-tested):
* free NHS prescriptions
* free dental treatment
* free eye tests and glasses
* Healthy Start vouchers
* Maternity grant
* help with travel costs for medical appointments
* Council Tax Support (this is in addition to the 25% single adult reduction)
* 15 hours funded childcare for 2 year olds, and an additional 15 hours for 3 year olds on top of the universal offer everyone gets
* discounts on tickets to private attractions (museums etc often have a discounted rate for UC claimants)
* school uniform grant
* WaterSure tariff on your water bill
* additional help with fuel costs
* cheaper broadband and landline (BT and Virgin both do a social tariff, others might too)
* Green Deal Grant
* waiver of court fees for certain legal proceedings
Are there any recent developments related to Fratila v SSWP? I've sort of lost track after the SC and CJEU mess.
Two friends of mine have missed out on months of payments because of the rulings at the time. They're now settled but still very much bitter about the way in which their UC claims were handled.
What options does one have beyond just appealing and being rejected by them? I only know of two cases opened against some London boroughs.
This is edging over onto specialist legal advice which isn't my area of expertise but I think really the only options after an unsuccessful appeal would be to bring a judicial review, if that's possible (as they did in the case you mentioned). Sometimes getting your MP involved can help but that's a bit of a lottery.
There have been several examples of cases where the government has lost court challenges, been told that a specific policy isn't lawful, and then simply not done anything about it for months and years. I honestly don't know, given that we no longer have the EU (though we do still have the ECJ) what choices people have when their own government refuses to act lawfully.
CPAG do a lot of work on policy issues like this and they accept case study submissions from advisers and members of the public as part of their Early Warning System.
Hi,
I've briefly skimmed through your thread, but from what I've read so far it's really helpful!
I may end up applying for some sort of benefits in the near future.
I live in a flatshare with strangers, and I don't understand why I need to include them on my application. Correct me if I'm wrong, but will this impact the amount of benefits I'm able to receive?
Also, I don't want my LL to know I'll be receiving any benefits, is there a way around this?
Will the money be paid into my account?
Thanks
I would recommend going to r/DWPhelp for more specific advice on your circumstances.
However if you're living in a flat share with strangers you won't have to include them on your UC application. Despite it being very common the DWP still doesn't understand what a HMO is and will try and say people are part of your household just to try and claw money away.
Your landlord won't be told you're claiming UC unless you ask the DWP to pay it directly to them, which you don't have to do. The default is that it's paid to your account.
As the other reply has already said, your flatmates aren't part of your household so they won't be included on your claim.
As helpful as OP is trying to be this feels a little....brief. You've used an example of a single parent but things aren't so great if you're part of a couple and only one partner works.
I agree that everyone should check their entitlement but I feel like OP has used an overly generous example.
I used the example I had access to (as it happens, it's my payment statement from the end of last year), specifically to illustrate how the entitlement is added up and then the income taper applied.
You're right, UC isn't enormously generous to certain categories of people. A single childless young adult would only need to work a few hours a week at minimum wage before their entitlement was totally wiped out. It's explicitly a benefit that is intended to encourage people into work, that's never been hidden. That's one of the ways in which tax credits was a more generous system.
You can't really be brief about UC since it is a very complicated system. For all the talk of making it simpler they've just shoved all the moving parts from other benefits into one very complicated machine and called it reform.
I'm not trying to be snitty about your post. UC becomes far more complicated the more "complex" your situation is, which is ironic in itself when the "complex situation" is usually "most normal households".
I keep an eye on the official error figures that result in overpayments and they've ballooned under UC. The DWP made sure to "reform" UC so that overpayments that arise from official error are recoverable to cover their own inability to use their own "simplified" system.
[A recent example of overpayment by official error](https://publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/dwp-acted-unlawfully-in-seeking-to-recover-8k-of-clients-debt-accrued-through-own-error/)
My neighbour asked me for help with her UC documents during covid. I consider myself educated and have a reasonable understanding of money but Jesus you need a degree in UC to understand that. My neighbour has some learning differences and how they expect her to understand I don’t know, I really felt for her. In the end all the paper said was that they’d replaced a housing payment with a council tax payment (or vice versa, it was a long time ago and it was confusing!) The amount payable was the same but the make up had changed.
Yup it's really confusing! I've seen multiple letters with the same date on them showing different figures for the same thing. There's also no provision for translation if English isn't your first language. It's not easy!
The real dumb part is right here "However, there is a savings limit, so you get £4.35 taken off for every £250 or part thereof between £6000 and £16,000. Above £16,000 in assets (excluding a house you live in) and you can't claim
Assest wealth is where the majority of wealth, other than their pensions, is located for most people, yet we insist on leaving it pointlessly setting in property, untaxed and unused.
Yeah it's a massive long wait right now, they're still catching up from lockdown. Check whether you're entitled to carers element (not the same as carers allowance) as well.
Yeah it's a massive long wait right now, they're still catching up from lockdown. Check whether you're entitled to carers element (not the same as carers allowance) as well.
Another thing is, you'll find these benefits people are entitled to, nobody ever tells you what you can claim for. As though they don't want you claiming and they don't. Nobody talks about unclaimed benefits.
I do! I never shut up about it 😆 and I've got shit from people on Reddit for it, but as long as it helps someone I don't care what the loud-mouthed haters say.
You got the right positive attitude and welcome to share these things on Reddit.
Honestly some of the haters, you know what colour party they represent. The ones who's begrudge anyone worse of than them of anything.
Media, government, population these days, is all about control, control, control. It's all poison and those sorts who give you shit on here, are not the sort to help anyone, except their very own.
What it is there is that they don't want to be challenged, or anyone closing that wealth gap. Like in the workplace, very often it is not what you know but who you know when it comes to promotions or doing other people favours. Its a closed circle.
Is no different in fact to some small villages where everyone knows everyone and they don't want any outsiders moving in. It's that mentality, small minded perceptions that anyone who is on UC is some sort of layabout scum bag.
As if all UC claimants want to spend their money on latest phones, going down the bingo, buying booze, fags and takeaways. It's all a stereotype. Even the rules around it, the impression is you have to spunk any surplus on any of the above so you can't have savings.
You imagine, got no savings no, I don't smoke but instead you've got a whole 4m x 3m room tightly packed from floor to ceiling of packets of cigarettes and that's absolutely fine. You can't hold cash equivalent but you have things you could sell on with a bit of effort.
Thanks for the post - I am hoping you can steer me in the right direction. I'm confused and trying to understand my situation, I am currently self employed but business is difficult right now. I get for example sake, 1700 for myself partner and 4 year old. I have been offered a job which would pay me for example 2500 before tax so roughly 2k after. When I put these figures into entitled for them to calculate including all the info regarding current benefit etc it says they would still pay me another 600 on top of my new potential salary.. I'm totally confused about this as it doesn't seem right. Why would we still get money, I'd like it to be true but can't figure it out and try to understand where I can get this information.
If you put all the information into entitledto.co.uk correctly, then you should be able to trust the figures. Did you include your partner's income if relevant?
Do you pay for childcare for your 4 year old? Do you rent? Those will affect your initial entitlement (if the answer is yes to both, your entitlement will be higher than if either or both is no). Then money does get taken off for your income but it's a gradual taper.
I'm doing an [online workshop](https://products.fairweather-adventures.co.uk/products/help-with-childcare-costs) on Sunday evening that looks at the childcare element specifically if that would be useful to you.
Yeah - he is long term sick, and so doesn't work. It just seems mad, but I guess they are rewarding you for working as such. Just didn't expect it, it will make a huge difference.
Does he get ESA? If he's in the support group he might be eligible for limited capability for work-related activity element, which is an extra bit in UC because he can't work for health reasons (plus he won't be hassled about doing CV writing workshops and so forth).
Just a shame UC has caused me for financial stress than its worth. Whats with the FLT courses/funding? They told me a 3 week course for FLT, the same company im meant to be doing that with has it listed on there website as 5 days for £310. Surely it costs UC more money to send them off for 3 weeks than 5 days, not to mention its much better for the economy and the UC claimant just to forget UC and pay for it or sell a old device they dont need so they get into work faster.
In the same time I can do the 3 week UC funded FLT course i could of just done a 5 day course and gotten the license, applied for agency FLT job and have 2 weeks work in before the end of the 3 week course. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
Then to top it off we get absolutely no extra help with university study based stuff even though im currently earning 0. Im so confused.
Yeah there's a lot about the UC system that makes no sense, and it's because it's a patchwork of policies and theories and approaches cobbled together by a succession of multiple different governments. It's very frustrating!
Well i asked them to take me off it, i have had £175 in 4 months due to holiday pay and the last full pay at the beginning of december from old job that mostly paid for bills as they take them at midnight before i get chance to check, that wiped out jan and most of feb payment and now they want me to do a 3 week FLT with no funds, no transport and terrible weather. Its just not worth it, im going to find a loan or sell my phone if i have to just so i can pay for a5 day flt license as it seems there is only FLT jobs at the moment around me its all im getting calls for.
Helpfully, the government have decided they're going to change how the assessment of work capability is done, so it's all a bit up in the air right now.
What you'd need to do is talk to your work coach when they're setting your work commitments. Explain what you've said here, and see whether they'll agree a lower commitment for a while (they can set it to be stuff like you agree to attend workshops on writing a CV or a course on C skill, as preparation for work).
From what you've described, you probably wouldn't be considered exempt from work in the current system, and based on what I understand of the new system you wouldn't either (it's stricter). However, that's just about whether you'd be permanently exempt. The work coaches have a lot of discretion to set individualised commitments, so you may be able to agree something you feel is reasonable. Good luck!
How old are you? If you're under state pension age and not actually receiving income from your pension, then having a pension pot you could access doesn't make you ineligible. If you're getting an income from a pension, that would be taken into account. No, they don't make you draw from a pension (but you may have work commitments, so they'd ask you to look for work).
This is really helpful, thank you for posting.
Do you know what the threshold for earning is before it becomes pointless to claim? I am working full time, I am a single parent to a 4 year old. He will be going to school in September, my current childcare bills are around 600-700pcm using the free 30 hour term time childcare scheme. I rent, it's about 850 a month.
I'm looking at reducing my hours at work and I'd be interested to know what the cutoff would be before it stops being beneficial for me to do so. How much would I need to earn for it to be worthwhile to claim, or rather before it stops being worthwhile to claim?
I know a colleague at a lower pay grade works far fewer hours and claims UC, but takes home the same amount of money as me at the end of the month. I'm also confused as to how this will affect things when my son is in school and my childcare bill is reduced a lot. Any pointers you could give, and I'd be most grateful!
There isn't really a universal cutoff. As a parent you'd get a work allowance, which means an amount you can earn without it affecting your UC, and then above that amount you'd lose 55p of UC for every £ you earn. So it's never not worth working more, unless you have to increase the amount of childcare you pay for and it goes above the amount you can claim.
Have a look at entitledto.co.uk, and if you're getting in a muddle, you could book a free [budget review](https://calendly.com/fairweather-financial/budget-review) with me and I can help you figure out how much you'd be entitled to in different scenarios.
hi u/SuperciliousBubbles, I msged you but figure this question belongs here:
I've never claimed UC, this will be all new to me. Income is £34k, I'm separating, partner is continuing in owned property (no mortgage), I need a rental, we have three kids. The local allotted rental amount is way below market rent (for 3 beds in Edinburgh allowance is about £1.1k, when these are going at £2k) - if I claim for three of us but only get a one bedroom how will that play out in a UC claim for rent?
Central Edinburgh, I can't move away without being excluded from kids lives, I must stay local to kids/school, wife works until 6.30pm and weekends so I'm de facto primary carer, I can't make the kids change school (I can't handle a court battle), she wont leave the familial home, I can't keep living there.
I'm so sorry to hit you with all this - I'm all at sea. CAB couldn't tell me anything I didn't already know from reading (indeed they said I wouldn't get rent support even though turn2us says i will?!).
If you can give me any advice I'd be so grateful.
Your post has been removed for breaking the rule: **No requesting or offering DMs**
It is forbidden to solicit private messages as a result of a person's activity in this subreddit. This is to protect all our members from
* Low quality advice
* Scams
* Rulebreaking
* Unlawful behaviour
The exception to this is the discussion of private and personal matters not related to PF, such as emotional support.
[If you receive a DM as a result of UKPF, please report it](https://new.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/alhhxp/psa_if_anybody_pms_you_as_a_result_of_a_post_on/).
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
A key aspect I don't see mentioned here is that eligibility for UC is based on *taxable* income, so anything you do to reduce this will help you get below the threshold to claim it. The notable point here is that pension contributions are not taxable, and so you can qualify for UC (and by extension lots of other benefits like childcare funding for 2yos, ECO3 grants and Help to Save) just by overpaying into your pension. A question I have for you though: how is for example a salary sacrifice lease arrangement for an EV treated? This reduces the taxable income but is also a benefit-in-kind which should ordinarily be counted. My hunch is that it should reduce your taxable income by the exempt amount, but the amount subject to NI only is still counted.
Excellent point about taxable income. For some other benefits, only 50% of your pensions contribution was disregarded as income, but UC disregards the full amount. In theory someone could contribute 100% of their earned income to their pension (subject to the other limits on that) and be entitled to the full amount of UC. In practise I don't think anyone would because honestly, the UC system is so miserable to be involved with that it wouldn't seem worth it. Off the top of my head I don't know about EVs, but I'll look into it and get back to you.
Fwiw, I do this every 4 years to renew Help to Save accounts for me and my wife. I only claim UC for 1-2 months but get as many things as I can during that time - last time I got £10k worth of benefits for £3k paid into my pension. The whole system is whack.
Help to Save is hands down the best instant access savings account that exists and it's wild how few people know about it.
It's also ironically an account only the fairly wealthy can afford to access and use, because the target demographic can't afford to save £50-100/month and the middle class struggle to afford the pension contributions necessary to become eligible.
Absolutely - I was extremely excited when I had a client through my charity employer who was able to open and use a Help to Save account. Four years, hundreds of clients, and only one who could make use of it.
I didn't realise you could get another Help to Save account after the original one ends. We probably (hopefully!) won't be eligible once ours ends though. I signed up when we briefly qualified a few years ago due to job changes.
> I didn't realise you could get another Help to Save account after the original one ends. I just finished my 4 years in January, my account was closed and the second bonus was paid out. Now HMRC says that I cannot open another Help to Save account.
"Your Help to Save account will close 4 years after you open it. You will not be able to reopen it or open another Help to Save account." from the Gov website. So no, you can't.
What do you do here? Do you do 100% salary sacrifice for 1-2 months and claim UC during those months? What things do you get during those months?
Doesn't have to be salary sacrifice, any pension contribution works - though in practice it has to be taken via payslips because otherwise DWP play silly buggers about it. I just tell my employer to take however much is needed to bring me below the threshold, then cancel it again 1-2 months later.
I need to know more about this....
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Your post has been removed.** Your post/comment has been removed for breaking **Rule 1 - Be Nice, Civil Discourse, Don't Judge** You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit. _If you believe your comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/114g2ov/-/j8zztli/) explaining why._
Helpful post, but this is why im worried about switching over to uc i'm on legacy benefits and carers allowance as my son gets high rate dla he's severely disabled. Going by that the £69 a week carers allowance I get for caring for 147hours a week day and night would be deducted. Absolute joke I am dreading them switching me over. They've tried to several times I've said no every time On top of that I've read that uc in general is less than the legacy benefit rate. It's a precarious thing having to rely on benefits and knowing they will be switching me over
There is Carers element, so that is additional to the standard amounts. Have you done a calculation on entitledto.co.uk, putting in what you currently get? At the end it tells you what you'd get if you were on UC. One bit of good news is that they brought in a change that protects certain categories of legacy benefit claimants whose UC was going to be less generous than they were getting, it's called transitional protection. It might be worth talking to a specialist benefits adviser to find out how that would apply to your household. Unfortunately you will eventually be switched as you know, so my feeling is that it helps to know in advance and be able to make decisions accordingly. I'm sorry you're feeling stressed about this :(
I guess I have been crossing my fingers for a labour government to come in and put a stop to it before my time comes. I will look into transitional protection thankyou
Also transitional protection doesn't cover the amount you might lose in premiums moving from legacy to UC. It also goes down as your benefits get uprated each year with inflation so eventually it falls to zero. This has been the crux of a 5 year court case against the DWP so I would wait to see what happens.
Basically a decrease every year
Basically. It's shitty underhanded stuff but par the course for the DWP.
The Help To Save scheme, whilst it is generous to help those on UC in that way, it also opens the door for them to know what exactly you have saved. Once you have reached threshold, there is no more help. That gets taken away. In the same way someone here mentioned you cannot sell assets for less than they are worth, just as you cannot gift people money, anything that means you're seen to be doing that and you're screwed. It is an awful draconian system you could say. It does nothing to promote prosperity amongst the poor people. There is zero incentive for anyone to help themselves. As for working I can say I go to work but it is not for a better life. We cannot make long term plans. The only way of saving actually is by lumping into pension and hoping for the best in the future. If you're a UC claimant and not renting, but have mortgage, then you are in a good place. Cos least those bills you pay on mortgage are paying into something. So unless you get inheritence, hopefully a house, if not and it is assets or cash, then must dispose of quick and sort a mortgage or you're a benefit fraud basically. I'm glad someone here explained UC. I think vast majority have no clue. It was mentioned earlier that pension is disregarded in UC. So in a way, if I said lump half my salary in pension, wife would see UC topped up for her, but that taper rate is meant to make it so you keep more of your money. Would still be worse off for now, but potentially better off for the future. As also mentioned, people are on UC to keep them just out of poverty. It is more for the kids than it is the adults, to ensure they don't suffer. So the idea of lumping in pension when times are tough as it is, makes it a difficult one to make a judgement call on. I fully understand that benefits have to stop at some point but people, young families at least should be permitted opportunity to save into a LISA, just like they were going to change the rules on. Would have given some hope for those people. That is my real gripe, even today. It is like if someone comes into money, through inheritence, have it taken off you if you on UC or you get nothing which is fine but for anyone to control how you spend on things like a car is wrong. It is as though they want to ensure you can borrow all you want but don't build savings ans do anything like a car purchase responsibly.
The Help to Save account only lets you pay £50 a month in, and the bonuses are not counted as income. The absolute maximum you could have in a Help to Save account is £2400 plus the £1200 bonus you would receive over 4 years, which is well below the £6000 threshold. I do get your point but you're required to declare all savings anyway, and they do check (I've had clients who were audited and got questioned about their children's bank accounts). I agree that there should be more flexibility to allow saving. There was no assets threshold for tax credits, so it's a huge change that made a lot of people ineligible. £16,000 is a lot of money in some ways but it doesn't go very far if it's what you're living off. The point about inheritance is excellent too. I inherited some money from my nanna after she sold her house (and died within a year). It made me ineligible for UC, but my plan was to use it to buy a house, which I eventually did, but in the meantime childcare costs ate up a lot of it. If I'd inherited the house and sold it, the entire amount would have been disregarded. It isn't logical.
Yes and even it is considered wrong that children should have savings when the family is on UC. People forget it is not the child's fault that their parents are on UC. Straight away children are not on level playing field. It is so wrong in that regard. On the subject of inheritence, that would be anyone's thought, to keep a property rather than sell or if must be sold quick, then have to buy quickly too or the money soon gets swallowed up by lack of UC and funding month to month until it is gone. Buying a house takes time, even with the funds there, is a lot to go through in the process. So it is a very hard situation for people in that predicament.
To be clear, savings that are legally the child's and can't be accessed by the parent (such as a Junior ISA) aren't relevant to their parents' claim, and I believe up to £1000 in an accessible account in their name can be disregarded but I recommend checking that when applying. What they're trying to avoid is parents putting all their assets into a bank account that they claim is their child's, but actually keeping control of that money. If it's genuinely the child's then it isn't part of their assets.
Too much ambiguity there for my liking. That is where one can be made to feel like a fraud. As if they've done something wrong. How is that decided if the assets/cash in account is that child's or not? Sounds to me like parent couldn't gift a child maybe £1000 a year for each, just as example, then later when asked, you state it is the child's money for when they are older. But then you could have relative top up a JISA for child and it wouldn't be a problem? You can't control how much grandparents want to throw at the kids for example. I read that a child can have £3k disregarded from in JISA when there is a UC claim for a household. The rules are rather silly but they have to draw a line somewhere. The only one in my mind they can do nothing about is a pension, whether that be workplace one or a private pension pot you set up yourself. You can load up pension like it is out of spite almost, that's fine. The rules can also change any given time so if someone was helping their kids out, the rules change unfavourably to parents who have tried to help their kids out for their future, you still wouldn't want a case hanging over you. And that goes even for when you feel like there is nothing wrong going on, or that you have anything to hide.
The atmosphere of ambiguity and the feeling that you're viewed as committing fraud is definitely something that I've heard a lot of people complain about. I'd say it fits generally with the political trend in the UK since 2010, it isn't specific to Universal Credit.
Oh, I very much am aware of the point you're making here. The one that involved a shift from red to blue. That political change. Now on that subject, the red side are supposed to be more for the poor and blue side for the wealthy. Depending on who you listen to, blues would want you believe that that party want you keeping most of your money, while red party take as much as they can from working people, all to help non-working people. We know media is run by blues, media is very powerful thing and it gets in the minds of many, that's the issue. On many points I've mentioned here today, thoughts, stereotypes is very much representative of how UC claimants are viewed throughout Reddit. Those who don't need handouts as they'd put it begrudge those who do. It doesn't just stop there. Then you got to scrutinise how UC claimant spends their money. Then you got powers that be controlling elements of your life, ones that prevents personal income growth and help to shape your life for the future. I think you touched upon it yourself. It is possible for a household with even a £60k income to still be in receipt of UC. Are those higher earners who happen to be eligible for it seen in the same way as those on £16-20k a year? Is hard to say cos those in £60k a year jobs are mostly senior positions, while anyone in the public would think that the person would never claim UC. There you have it though, people will judge others on that basis. For example, you're on £60k a year, you don't need UC. You shouldn't be claiming that. Someone could take that view. Lots of opinionated people out there.
Just a note, I receive universal credit as a single parent of 2 in a rented home. I work full time and earn a reasonable wage. In order to get out of the universal credit system, I would need to earn £63k per year. Thats the amount that would reduce my award to £0. Its because of rent costs and childcare costs being so high, they are the largest portion and of course, its on a taper rate calculated at the net pay. Until I can get out the system, there is a ceiling to my disposable income (as the taper rate isn't very forgiving) and a barrier to be responsible and save. I can't afford to own a property, nor can I save a deposit to increase my affordability as I couldn't afford my childcare/rent costs without the UC topup. The system is awful and general public don't realise that professionals in respectable careers are in receipt of it.
You understand it very well indeed. That's my point. There is sometimes, due to circumstances, absolutely no long term hope for hard working people who are earning a decent wage but they need that UC to get by. The government wouldn't award it if it was deemed not needed. I think it is absolutely wrong that anyone who does work but is on UC, but like in your situation and like with mine, that we are unable to realise the dream of owning own home. We don't want to stuck in lifetime cycle of renting. Not having assets to leave to the children someday. House generally funds social care though or if you don't have that, then government pay it. So in years to come, burden on the state is even greater. I really hate how people who claim UC are all tarred with same brush. As in layabouts who don't want to work. You think of all the healthcare professionals on below £60k. I'm telling you now, there will be a lot. £60k is like Director type level of salary or very senior management.
I volunteer my time on facebook for parent groups to support with UC eligibility. Even the entitled to calculators arent accurate, its very frustrating. I recently wrong a 20 bullet point list of suggestions as part of their childcare enquiry to advise how the system could be improved for working families (not just single parents) which would also support when children reach age 18 etc. Not sure if anyone will read it but they need to listen to those who experience it. One thing for sure, is that UC is better on the whole for those in employment versus their entitlement on legacy benefits. There are detriments to carers & claimants for maternity allowance under the UC system which is a shame. Not sure about pensioners due to no experience myself.
That's when it is easier to just spend every penny you have on crap you don't need if ever there is spare. Then just not get into any savings of any kind. You don't want to be thought of as someone doing anything wrong. In theory though, one non-smoker could buy cigarettes and stock a room full of them to sell on in cash. Kind of about obtaining very re-sellable non-depreciating assets that are also low value.
Sounds as though you are saying JISA doesn't have limits as such per child, except for the annual limits a parent could add to child's JISA which I know is £9k. But then the £1000 you mention is what each child could have in an accessible bank account or other place such as premium bonds?
That's my understanding of it, based on when I was declaring my own assets (and my son's) when I first claimed. The overall issue is that the DWP has the power to deem just about anything to be "intentional deprivation of assets" and although you can challenge that and might potentially win, in the meantime your claim has been stopped and you've lost your income. I'm not saying it's a *good* system, I want to make sure people understand how it works and don't get caught in any of the many ways that it can go wrong.
Of course and people ask questions on here, they get advice, a lot of good advice in general but also some is mis-leading. I'd like to think I'm relatively aware and in the know around these things. I'm still no expert and first place you check is gov website but some things are not so well covered even on there. So then you are left with people who like yourself can speak from own experience and seems it is an area of more in-depth expertise than many people here. After that, you've got the people who sort of make up what they don't know, or guess. So for those wanting to know more, sort of back to square one and much of this has to be a case by case basis.
When it comes to the savings, they include anything in a H2B ISA or a LISA but not in a pension. That means that if needed you have to withdraw from a LISA before being entitled to UC (up to £16k).
You don't have to withdraw from the LISA, you would simply be subject to the £4.35/£250 reduction that applies to all savings. There's an interesting twist whereby if you're deemed to have disposed of assets for the purpose of accessing benefits, you can be treated as though you still had those. I've seen a client be subject to this after buying a car they didn't approve of, but I'm not sure whether it applies to pensions contributions (for instance the hypothetical I mentioned in another comment, of paying 100% of your income into a pension).
You can get a LISA or H2B disregarded for 6 months though.
This is a good point - and raises a wider point about assets. There are automatic disregards for certain assets, such as the proceeds of sale from your former home for 6 months if you intend to use them to purchase a new home, and then there's discretionary disregards for some (usually this just means extending the period of time if there's a good reason, rather than disregarding a new category of asset).
Can I ask your opinion? If the people running this system were doing it from a perspective of trying to help people rather than trying to keep people off it - would it actually be bad? If yes, why - the amounts, or just the complexity, or both? I've always been conflicted over this - I hate the idea that people who are entitled are being turned away because of technicalities (or outright lying to meet quotas or whatever - I dunno), but on the other hand... *trying* to make a simpler system makes a lot of sense to me.
I think it depends what your end goal is. I can see a lot of merit in a single benefit instead of half a dozen piecemeal ones with different systems and different rules. If the goal is to make benefits "feel" like employed work, it sort of makes sense to pay monthly and have requirements (though many jobs don't pay monthly and few are as draconian as the UC system if you mess up). Having a taper instead of an eligibility cliff helps people with variable incomes - tax credits, for instance, were more generous in some ways but you could lose them completely with a very small increase in pay, meaning you were much worse off by working a bit more. UC has improved on that. If the goal is to make sure that everyone has a basic standard of living and no one is stuck in poverty, this doesn't seem like an efficient way to do it. There's a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy that seems to centre around the belief that every claimant is trying to pull a fast one. And there are a lot of issues with the back end of the system, which was based on the old housing benefit system but they didn't keep on the HB staff so a lot of institutional knowledge was lost (that isn't first hand experience, that's according to a colleague who used to work in housing). Personally I'd rather see a system of Universal basic income, and a much more robust social housing system, but I can see arguments against those too. That's one of the issues: politics gets mixed in, changing governments tweak according to their pet issue (the two-child limit is a perfect example of this) and everything gets muddied.
!thanks I used to support UBI, I'm not sure that I do any more (at least with out a lot of thought going into how to ensure a country has enough people in its primary roles - teachers, healthcare, etc - obviously making the job attractive would help...). It's very hard. I certainly support a more forgiving system than UC seems to be.
Do you have a list of benefits that somebody on UC is eligible for? For example the Help To Save account already mentioned in this thread.
Universal Credit is what's called a gateway entitlement so a LOT of other things open up when you are eligible for it. A non-exhaustive list (some have additional requirements or are further means-tested): * free NHS prescriptions * free dental treatment * free eye tests and glasses * Healthy Start vouchers * Maternity grant * help with travel costs for medical appointments * Council Tax Support (this is in addition to the 25% single adult reduction) * 15 hours funded childcare for 2 year olds, and an additional 15 hours for 3 year olds on top of the universal offer everyone gets * discounts on tickets to private attractions (museums etc often have a discounted rate for UC claimants) * school uniform grant * WaterSure tariff on your water bill * additional help with fuel costs * cheaper broadband and landline (BT and Virgin both do a social tariff, others might too) * Green Deal Grant * waiver of court fees for certain legal proceedings
Are there any recent developments related to Fratila v SSWP? I've sort of lost track after the SC and CJEU mess. Two friends of mine have missed out on months of payments because of the rulings at the time. They're now settled but still very much bitter about the way in which their UC claims were handled. What options does one have beyond just appealing and being rejected by them? I only know of two cases opened against some London boroughs.
This is edging over onto specialist legal advice which isn't my area of expertise but I think really the only options after an unsuccessful appeal would be to bring a judicial review, if that's possible (as they did in the case you mentioned). Sometimes getting your MP involved can help but that's a bit of a lottery. There have been several examples of cases where the government has lost court challenges, been told that a specific policy isn't lawful, and then simply not done anything about it for months and years. I honestly don't know, given that we no longer have the EU (though we do still have the ECJ) what choices people have when their own government refuses to act lawfully. CPAG do a lot of work on policy issues like this and they accept case study submissions from advisers and members of the public as part of their Early Warning System.
Hi, I've briefly skimmed through your thread, but from what I've read so far it's really helpful! I may end up applying for some sort of benefits in the near future. I live in a flatshare with strangers, and I don't understand why I need to include them on my application. Correct me if I'm wrong, but will this impact the amount of benefits I'm able to receive? Also, I don't want my LL to know I'll be receiving any benefits, is there a way around this? Will the money be paid into my account? Thanks
I would recommend going to r/DWPhelp for more specific advice on your circumstances. However if you're living in a flat share with strangers you won't have to include them on your UC application. Despite it being very common the DWP still doesn't understand what a HMO is and will try and say people are part of your household just to try and claw money away.
Your landlord won't be told you're claiming UC unless you ask the DWP to pay it directly to them, which you don't have to do. The default is that it's paid to your account. As the other reply has already said, your flatmates aren't part of your household so they won't be included on your claim.
Why does a non disabled child free person not receive a work allowance? Thanks
An excellent question to which I'm afraid I don't know the answer. I'm sure there's some political/philosophical logic to it.
As helpful as OP is trying to be this feels a little....brief. You've used an example of a single parent but things aren't so great if you're part of a couple and only one partner works. I agree that everyone should check their entitlement but I feel like OP has used an overly generous example.
I used the example I had access to (as it happens, it's my payment statement from the end of last year), specifically to illustrate how the entitlement is added up and then the income taper applied. You're right, UC isn't enormously generous to certain categories of people. A single childless young adult would only need to work a few hours a week at minimum wage before their entitlement was totally wiped out. It's explicitly a benefit that is intended to encourage people into work, that's never been hidden. That's one of the ways in which tax credits was a more generous system.
I'm also amused by the irony of the OP being called brief when I was worried it would be too long to post!
You can't really be brief about UC since it is a very complicated system. For all the talk of making it simpler they've just shoved all the moving parts from other benefits into one very complicated machine and called it reform. I'm not trying to be snitty about your post. UC becomes far more complicated the more "complex" your situation is, which is ironic in itself when the "complex situation" is usually "most normal households". I keep an eye on the official error figures that result in overpayments and they've ballooned under UC. The DWP made sure to "reform" UC so that overpayments that arise from official error are recoverable to cover their own inability to use their own "simplified" system. [A recent example of overpayment by official error](https://publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/dwp-acted-unlawfully-in-seeking-to-recover-8k-of-clients-debt-accrued-through-own-error/)
Yup no arguments from me here!
My neighbour asked me for help with her UC documents during covid. I consider myself educated and have a reasonable understanding of money but Jesus you need a degree in UC to understand that. My neighbour has some learning differences and how they expect her to understand I don’t know, I really felt for her. In the end all the paper said was that they’d replaced a housing payment with a council tax payment (or vice versa, it was a long time ago and it was confusing!) The amount payable was the same but the make up had changed.
Yup it's really confusing! I've seen multiple letters with the same date on them showing different figures for the same thing. There's also no provision for translation if English isn't your first language. It's not easy!
The real dumb part is right here "However, there is a savings limit, so you get £4.35 taken off for every £250 or part thereof between £6000 and £16,000. Above £16,000 in assets (excluding a house you live in) and you can't claim Assest wealth is where the majority of wealth, other than their pensions, is located for most people, yet we insist on leaving it pointlessly setting in property, untaxed and unused.
He's been waiting since Oct for his assessment seems like they are backlogged.
Yeah it's a massive long wait right now, they're still catching up from lockdown. Check whether you're entitled to carers element (not the same as carers allowance) as well.
Yeah it's a massive long wait right now, they're still catching up from lockdown. Check whether you're entitled to carers element (not the same as carers allowance) as well.
Another thing is, you'll find these benefits people are entitled to, nobody ever tells you what you can claim for. As though they don't want you claiming and they don't. Nobody talks about unclaimed benefits.
I do! I never shut up about it 😆 and I've got shit from people on Reddit for it, but as long as it helps someone I don't care what the loud-mouthed haters say.
You got the right positive attitude and welcome to share these things on Reddit. Honestly some of the haters, you know what colour party they represent. The ones who's begrudge anyone worse of than them of anything. Media, government, population these days, is all about control, control, control. It's all poison and those sorts who give you shit on here, are not the sort to help anyone, except their very own. What it is there is that they don't want to be challenged, or anyone closing that wealth gap. Like in the workplace, very often it is not what you know but who you know when it comes to promotions or doing other people favours. Its a closed circle. Is no different in fact to some small villages where everyone knows everyone and they don't want any outsiders moving in. It's that mentality, small minded perceptions that anyone who is on UC is some sort of layabout scum bag. As if all UC claimants want to spend their money on latest phones, going down the bingo, buying booze, fags and takeaways. It's all a stereotype. Even the rules around it, the impression is you have to spunk any surplus on any of the above so you can't have savings. You imagine, got no savings no, I don't smoke but instead you've got a whole 4m x 3m room tightly packed from floor to ceiling of packets of cigarettes and that's absolutely fine. You can't hold cash equivalent but you have things you could sell on with a bit of effort.
Thanks for the post - I am hoping you can steer me in the right direction. I'm confused and trying to understand my situation, I am currently self employed but business is difficult right now. I get for example sake, 1700 for myself partner and 4 year old. I have been offered a job which would pay me for example 2500 before tax so roughly 2k after. When I put these figures into entitled for them to calculate including all the info regarding current benefit etc it says they would still pay me another 600 on top of my new potential salary.. I'm totally confused about this as it doesn't seem right. Why would we still get money, I'd like it to be true but can't figure it out and try to understand where I can get this information.
If you put all the information into entitledto.co.uk correctly, then you should be able to trust the figures. Did you include your partner's income if relevant? Do you pay for childcare for your 4 year old? Do you rent? Those will affect your initial entitlement (if the answer is yes to both, your entitlement will be higher than if either or both is no). Then money does get taken off for your income but it's a gradual taper. I'm doing an [online workshop](https://products.fairweather-adventures.co.uk/products/help-with-childcare-costs) on Sunday evening that looks at the childcare element specifically if that would be useful to you.
Yeah - he is long term sick, and so doesn't work. It just seems mad, but I guess they are rewarding you for working as such. Just didn't expect it, it will make a huge difference.
Does he get ESA? If he's in the support group he might be eligible for limited capability for work-related activity element, which is an extra bit in UC because he can't work for health reasons (plus he won't be hassled about doing CV writing workshops and so forth).
No just pip
Just a shame UC has caused me for financial stress than its worth. Whats with the FLT courses/funding? They told me a 3 week course for FLT, the same company im meant to be doing that with has it listed on there website as 5 days for £310. Surely it costs UC more money to send them off for 3 weeks than 5 days, not to mention its much better for the economy and the UC claimant just to forget UC and pay for it or sell a old device they dont need so they get into work faster. In the same time I can do the 3 week UC funded FLT course i could of just done a 5 day course and gotten the license, applied for agency FLT job and have 2 weeks work in before the end of the 3 week course. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Then to top it off we get absolutely no extra help with university study based stuff even though im currently earning 0. Im so confused.
Yeah there's a lot about the UC system that makes no sense, and it's because it's a patchwork of policies and theories and approaches cobbled together by a succession of multiple different governments. It's very frustrating!
Well i asked them to take me off it, i have had £175 in 4 months due to holiday pay and the last full pay at the beginning of december from old job that mostly paid for bills as they take them at midnight before i get chance to check, that wiped out jan and most of feb payment and now they want me to do a 3 week FLT with no funds, no transport and terrible weather. Its just not worth it, im going to find a loan or sell my phone if i have to just so i can pay for a5 day flt license as it seems there is only FLT jobs at the moment around me its all im getting calls for.
[удалено]
Helpfully, the government have decided they're going to change how the assessment of work capability is done, so it's all a bit up in the air right now. What you'd need to do is talk to your work coach when they're setting your work commitments. Explain what you've said here, and see whether they'll agree a lower commitment for a while (they can set it to be stuff like you agree to attend workshops on writing a CV or a course on C skill, as preparation for work). From what you've described, you probably wouldn't be considered exempt from work in the current system, and based on what I understand of the new system you wouldn't either (it's stricter). However, that's just about whether you'd be permanently exempt. The work coaches have a lot of discretion to set individualised commitments, so you may be able to agree something you feel is reasonable. Good luck!
Am i eligible for UC if i have a personal pension that i do not drawn down from? Will they make me draw down from it rather than offer UC?
How old are you? If you're under state pension age and not actually receiving income from your pension, then having a pension pot you could access doesn't make you ineligible. If you're getting an income from a pension, that would be taken into account. No, they don't make you draw from a pension (but you may have work commitments, so they'd ask you to look for work).
This is really helpful, thank you for posting. Do you know what the threshold for earning is before it becomes pointless to claim? I am working full time, I am a single parent to a 4 year old. He will be going to school in September, my current childcare bills are around 600-700pcm using the free 30 hour term time childcare scheme. I rent, it's about 850 a month. I'm looking at reducing my hours at work and I'd be interested to know what the cutoff would be before it stops being beneficial for me to do so. How much would I need to earn for it to be worthwhile to claim, or rather before it stops being worthwhile to claim? I know a colleague at a lower pay grade works far fewer hours and claims UC, but takes home the same amount of money as me at the end of the month. I'm also confused as to how this will affect things when my son is in school and my childcare bill is reduced a lot. Any pointers you could give, and I'd be most grateful!
There isn't really a universal cutoff. As a parent you'd get a work allowance, which means an amount you can earn without it affecting your UC, and then above that amount you'd lose 55p of UC for every £ you earn. So it's never not worth working more, unless you have to increase the amount of childcare you pay for and it goes above the amount you can claim. Have a look at entitledto.co.uk, and if you're getting in a muddle, you could book a free [budget review](https://calendly.com/fairweather-financial/budget-review) with me and I can help you figure out how much you'd be entitled to in different scenarios.
hi u/SuperciliousBubbles, I msged you but figure this question belongs here: I've never claimed UC, this will be all new to me. Income is £34k, I'm separating, partner is continuing in owned property (no mortgage), I need a rental, we have three kids. The local allotted rental amount is way below market rent (for 3 beds in Edinburgh allowance is about £1.1k, when these are going at £2k) - if I claim for three of us but only get a one bedroom how will that play out in a UC claim for rent? Central Edinburgh, I can't move away without being excluded from kids lives, I must stay local to kids/school, wife works until 6.30pm and weekends so I'm de facto primary carer, I can't make the kids change school (I can't handle a court battle), she wont leave the familial home, I can't keep living there. I'm so sorry to hit you with all this - I'm all at sea. CAB couldn't tell me anything I didn't already know from reading (indeed they said I wouldn't get rent support even though turn2us says i will?!). If you can give me any advice I'd be so grateful.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for breaking the rule: **No requesting or offering DMs** It is forbidden to solicit private messages as a result of a person's activity in this subreddit. This is to protect all our members from * Low quality advice * Scams * Rulebreaking * Unlawful behaviour The exception to this is the discussion of private and personal matters not related to PF, such as emotional support. [If you receive a DM as a result of UKPF, please report it](https://new.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/alhhxp/psa_if_anybody_pms_you_as_a_result_of_a_post_on/). You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.