Universal Credit Joint Claim Moving Jobs

callumt72

Hi,

I am currently recieving UC (Universal Credit) in a joint claim with my partner, I recieve LCWRA and we recieve housing costs, care element. My patner is going to moving employment in the NHS from one position to another the position is from 40 hours to 37.5 hours but same money, I asked UC if this is acceptable as it has more oppertunities for my patner to progress and actual hit her personal goals. Universal credit said we'd be sanctioned if she was to do this but my patner is not concerned about this as she has her own goal which I respect but how will this affect my money and how long is sanctions will they even be able to tell as its still the NHS.

Adrian_Scope

Hello @callumt72.

There are a few reasons why I believe the advice you've been given to be incorrect.

First of all, if your partner is receiving the carer element of Universal Credit, then they currently have no work or work-related commitments. The criteria for a sanction to apply clearly state:

K5002 A low-level sanction is a reduction of an award of UC for a sanctionable failure by a claimant who:

1. falls within specified work-related requirements groups and
2. fails, for no good reason, to comply with specified work-related requirements.

Since your partner has no work or work-related requirements, they cannot be sanctioned for leaving employment, changing to a lesser paid job, working part-time, or changing jobs such as the situation you've described.

Secondly, you've mentioned that it is still the same money, and assuming she is earning minimum wage or above, she will still be fulfilling her claimant commitment even if she were not a carer.

Did telephone staff advise you that she would be sanctioned, or did you receive this information on your journal?

calcotti

Adrian_Scope said:

There are a few reasons why I believe the advice you've been given to be incorrect.

First of all, if your partner is receiving the carer element of Universal Credit, then they currently have no work or work-related commitments.

Nothing in the opening post suggests the partner is getting the carer element. OP hasn’t said that they get a disability benefit to make carer element possible.

However I agree that partner cannot be sanctioned because they will still be working over their CET (based on 35 hours).

Adrian_Scope

Good point @calcotti - I've assumed callumt72's partner was receiving the carer element from callumt72 receiving LCWRA and saying they have care element in with their Universal Credit, that it belongs to their partner. But I should have clarified.
Either way, as you say, they'd still be earning over their CET so cannot be sanctioned.  

I hope that helps reassure you @callumt72, but if you do have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask.

callumt72

Adrian_Scope said:

Good point @calcotti - I've assumed callumt72's partner was receiving the carer element from callumt72 receiving LCWRA and saying they have care element in with their Universal Credit, that it belongs to their partner. But I should have clarified.
Either way, as we both agree, they'd still be earning over their CET so cannot be sanctioned. 

I hope that helps reassure you @callumt72, but if you do have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask.

thanks for your help, I'd like to ask one further question do I have to tell them of this change as my patner is PAYE so they already no through national insurance number what earning and to pay. It says only self employed / non payee on the gov website but should I just scared of the repecutions or the rasing of eyebrows.

calcotti

Adrian_Scope said:

Good point @calcotti - I've assumed callumt72's partner was receiving the carer element from callumt72 receiving LCWRA and saying they have care element in with their Universal Credit, that it belongs to their partner. But I should have clarified.

Nobody can claim carer element for looking after someone on the grounds they yet LCWRA. LCWRA is not a disability benefit and is not a qualifying benefit for qualifying for carer element.

Adrian_Scope

@calcotti I think there may be some confusion over what I've said, I am already aware that LCWRA doesn't qualify someone to claim carer element for them. 

The OP stated they receive LCWRA and their joint claim also has housing element and carer element, as one person can’t have both in payment, I’ve made the assumption the carer element is their partner's. If it is, then they have no work or work-related commitments. I haven't said LCWRA qualifies someone for carer element.

callumt72 said:

thanks for your help, I'd like to ask one further question do I have to tell them of this change as my patner is PAYE so they already no through national insurance number what earning and to pay. It says only self employed / non payee on the gov website but should I just scared of the repecutions or the rasing of eyebrows.

Since this change shouldn't affect your claim, most people would argue that there's no need to update it. However, claimant commitments usually state that all changes should be reported to UC. Therefore, it's probably better to report the change anyway.
When reporting it, there's no specific inquiry about the employer, but there are sections for earnings and hours worked. 
I hope your partner enjoys her new role!

callumt72

calcotti said:

Adrian_Scope said:

Good point @calcotti - I've assumed callumt72's partner was receiving the carer element from callumt72 receiving LCWRA and saying they have care element in with their Universal Credit, that it belongs to their partner. But I should have clarified.

Nobody can claim carer element for looking after someone on the grounds they yet LCWRA. LCWRA is not a disability benefit and is not a qualifying benefit for qualifying for carer element.

 No but as I stated, We get it in that post as my patner gets it in the Unverisal Claim for caring for me the required amount as I get PIP which is seperate 

calcotti

Adrian_Scope said:

@calcotti I think there may be some confusion over what I've said, ..

The OP stated they receive LCWRA and their joint claim also has housing element and carer element, as one person can’t have both in payment, I’ve made the assumption the carer element is their partner's. 

You’re correct, Adrian. Misreading on my part, apologies. 

It’s very depressing, given the circumstances, that UC could comment on a possible sanction.

Adrian_Scope

calcotti said:

It’s very depressing, given the circumstances, that UC could comment on a possible sanction.

It really is. It makes you wonder how many people may have been put off making positive choices for their family based on poor advice and fear of sanction. 

callumt72

Adrian_Scope said:

calcotti said:

It’s very depressing, given the circumstances, that UC could comment on a possible sanction.

It really is. It makes you wonder how many people may have been put off making positive choices for their family based on poor advice and fear of sanction. 

Thanks for your help just going back to previous point we were told on the online journal this was the following message.

Apologies for the delay in responding to your journal enquiry

For future reference, a sanction may apply if you move from the Working Enough workgroup for  earnings (as opposed to reducing your hours) without good reason.

A sanction doesn’t apply if:
the loss of earnings or work is not your fault
you have good reason for the loss of work or earnings
you remain in the Working Enough regime

I hope this helps with your enquiry.  Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Thank You
Universal Credit

poppy123456

You should respond to that reminding them that when a claimant claims carers element they have no work commitments, therefore can’t be sanctioned!

calcotti

callumt72 said:

Adrian_Scope said:

calcotti said:

It’s very depressing, given the circumstances, that UC could comment on a possible sanction.

It really is. It makes you wonder how many people may have been put off making positive choices for their family based on poor advice and fear of sanction. 

Thanks for your help just going back to previous point we were told on the online journal this was the following message.

Apologies for the delay in responding to your journal enquiry

For future reference, a sanction may apply if you move from the Working Enough workgroup for  earnings (as opposed to reducing your hours) without good reason.

A sanction doesn’t apply if:
the loss of earnings or work is not your fault
you have good reason for the loss of work or earnings
you remain in the Working Enough regime

I hope this helps with your enquiry.  Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Thank You
Universal Credit

Note too that even if they were not a carer that message says "A sanction doesn't apply if you remain in the Working Enough regime" which they would.
In this case not relevant because of being a carer.

callumt72

Adrian_Scope said:

calcotti said:

It’s very depressing, given the circumstances, that UC could comment on a possible sanction.

It really is. It makes you wonder how many people may have been put off making positive choices for their family based on poor advice and fear of sanction. 

Thanks for your help just going back to previous point we were told on the online journal this was the following message.

Apologies for the delay in responding to your journal enquiry

For future reference, a sanction may apply if you move from the Working Enough workgroup for  earnings (as opposed to reducing your hours) without good reason.

A sanction doesn’t apply if:
the loss of earnings or work is not your fault
you have good reason for the loss of work or earnings
you remain in the Working Enough regime

I hope this helps with your enquiry.  Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Thank You
Universal Credit

poppy123456

Callum, I don’t understand why you’ve posted the same comment again, your question has already been answered.

Hannah_Alumni

Sorry! That was the community spam filter catching the comment! 

calcotti

poppy123456 said:

Callum, I don’t understand why you’ve posted the same comment again, your question has already been answered.

I took it that because I commented on how depressing it is that UC given incorrect information Callum has now commented according exactly what UC said.
What was posted by UC was slightly less depressing in that the advice was at least correct. However it's still depressing because it's irrelevant. The claimant had in the opening post "Universal credit said we'd be sanctioned" but that isn't what UC actually said but the irrelevant information undoubtedly confused the OP.

callumt72

poppy123456 said:

Callum, I don’t understand why you’ve posted the same comment again, your question has already been answered.

Hi Sorry don't know whats happened there wonder if I refreshed and its posted it again I never did it deliberatly