New UC rules to force both partners to work ??

[Citrusmuffin]

I can’t find anything online about this but have heard it’s being changed as previously there had to be a certain number of hours worked but this could be by just one partner but now it’s being changed to make both work even though the total household hours don’t change??

This seems very unfair and taking away choice for some families in difficult circumstances. I just can’t find the official guidance is anyone able to link to it ? Thanks

@AlienEgg Those already receiving PIP, if they work now but then become too unwell to work, they will automatically be deemed too unwell to work by UC? And for what level of PIP, any? yes and for any level of pip. Working will be a choice.

FFS I am not confused! Read the benefits and work link. With the new health element claimants can have voluntary and mandatory work commitments, and can be sanctioned if they fail to meet the mandatory ones.

That makes no sense. Many of us who receive PIP work. And many who don't receive PIP cannot work. PIP isn't about capability to work. It's meant to cover the additional costs of being disabled (but is far too low to do that).

@AlienEgg if you read the benefits and work FAQ you will see that being in receipt of PIP and thus the health element won’t necessarily mean someone doesn’t have work commitments.

The taxes of the other parent in the household, the taxes of the sahp before and after the fairly short period when they’re a sahp, the taxes of the children they raise. It’s not all about what one person is contributing in taxes in that tax year.

@FloatingBean your link is useful but seems entirely focused on whether people claiming UC would be assessed as fit for work.

Is doesn't address how that would happen if they do not get PIP.

But more importantly, it does not explain why PIP would be used to determine this, or how this would make any sense when many people who receive PIP can and do work. Or any assurance at all that this would not be used as a way to change the entitlement to PIP to make it so that anyone who can work no longer receives it. Which would basically be impoverishing disabled people yet again, removing disability benefits that every disabled person should receive, and instead changing PIP into something about some kind of work capability assessment.

Has there been any assurance that the criteria for PIP will not be changed and disability benefits removed from those who meet the (already harsh) criteria, if they also manage to work? Because that seems like a HUGE risk that would be catastrophic and isn't even mentioned in what you posted.

I worry this would be used as an excuse to change PIP criteria and remove disability benefits from disabled people who work.

It's the opposite that is the bigger risk! That this is used as an excuse to change PIP criteria so that instead of being assessed based on disability, people who now receive PIP might not if they also work.

It's a very bad idea to confuse disability benefits with means-tested benefits to support low incomes.

your link is useful but seems entirely focused on whether people claiming UC would be assessed as fit for work.

That’s because it is looking at the health element, which claimants will only receive if they are in receipt of PIP. My reply was only about PIP, thus the health element, automatically meaning claimants won’t have work commitments, not your other questions.

But it is. There’s a person at home perfectly capable of working but choosing not to.
I chose a nice holiday as a benefit to me which I will pay for, I don’t expect tax payers to pay for my choices.

If you want to not work, fine. Don’t expect tax payers to pay for it or extras when you retire and don’t have enough to live on in the future.

Everyone who’s capable contributes to society.
Its about sharing….not just taking…or isn’t that taught anymore.

Yeah... so the focus is wrong.

We should be protecting tje most vulnerable. This will potentially muddy the waters between what is means tested or not and mean less support for disabled people if they don't claim means tested benefits. I can absolutely see them using this as an excuse to then try to make all benefits for disabled people means tested which would be absolutely disgusting. The entire point of them is to cover the additional costs of disability to give disabled people a level playing field (although they've been lowered so much that they don't achieve this, but this could make it even worse!!)

OP what is your answer though?

I get you feel that PIP and other supports for carers etc should be easier to apply for. I somewhat agree. I don't feel it should be something that is easy to get. However, I do feel that it should be given in specific circumstances and that the application for getting it should be easier. I also agree its a disgrace that so many have to appeal. This should be looked at absolutely.

However, your post is about UC and to me from what you are writing you seem to be suggesting that UC should pick up all the flaws of PIP and other supports. Surely UC should be just that. Support for people who are on a low income, out of work or you cannot work. Not support for people who chose not to work because they would like to home-school or be a SAHP. I am here not talking about people who have caring responsibilities. To me they should not be on UC they are not able to work as they have caring responsibilities so should be on carers allowance and other support.

You repeatedly talk about how hard the applications are and I agree with this and I 100% think that need an overhaul, However, to me UC should not be subsidising this. UC should be what it is for and I personally (I know this will be controversial for many) do 100% believe that someone on UC should be expected to look for and find work.

To me what your actual issue is has to do with PIP WCA and other benefits and the issue with gaining these and keeping them. I am in agreement this needs dealing with but you posted about UC. Do you feel someone who is capable of working and has no reasons not to bar the fact they would prefer to homeschool or be a SAHP should be able to choose to go on UC? Or what is your solution? I am genuinely interested.

I BTW know from this post I will be accused of being a Tory voter. I do not vote Tory. However, I do believe we all have a responsibility to look after ourselves and our families if we are able. I don't believe that responsibility is on others.

@AlienEgg I totally agree.

Seems odd for this to be the case even for someone receiving for example just standard rate mobility ?

@Babyroobs it doesn't seem plausible, does it?

It isn’t the case. Being in receipt of PIP and thus the health element won’t automatically mean not having work commitments. Have a look at the benefits and work FAQ I linked to.

@FloatingBean you link states

"To be eligible for the UC health element you will need to be getting the UC standard allowance and any element of PIP."

Therefore, per your link (if it us correct) anybody receiving any PIP would be exempt from UC work requirement if they also decided to claim UC.

This is bizarre given that many people who receive PIP work.

Hence my suspicion that in fact - rather than this being about stopping people who are not disabled from claiming UC and not working - this is actually a backdoor way to then claim some link between PIP and work and over time try to water down PIP and provide even less money to disabled people, by pretending that PIP has anything to do with income or work ability, or change the criteria for PIP to make them about whether you can work or not, and therefore remove the little support there is for many disabled people. The exact opposite of what any decent society should be doing. And your link provided zero assurance that they would not try to change the criteria for PIP or means test it or make it even more inaccessible than it already is an victimise disabled people even more. It appears to me as an attempt to try to merge disability benefits - which rightly are not means-tested - with mean-tested benefits, by a process of gradual conflation of the two when they are for entirely different purposes. I hope I am just being cynical and I'm wrong, but it seems like a step towards trying to subsume disability benefits within UC in the longer term and make them only available based on a means-test, not a disability test. Which would be utterly vile.

Therefore, per your link (if it us correct) anybody receiving any PIP would be exempt from UC work requirement if they also decided to claim UC.

No, read the link. Being in receipt of the health element will not automatically mean no work commitments.

The link states: “Can I be forced to do any work-related activities if I get the UC health element?
Yes you can.
If you are receiving the UC health element you may be set both voluntary and mandatory work-related requirements by a work coach and you will be subject to sanctions if you don’t meet the mandatory requirements.
The DWP say they will introduce new “more personalised levels of conditionality and employment support, with the aim of helping people to reach their potential and live a more independent life”.#”

And your link provided zero assurance that they would not try to change the criteria for PIP or means test it or make it even more inaccessible than it already is an victimise disabled people even more.

I didn’t claim it did, did I?

@FloatingBean I don't now where you are getting that info from but it's not a government link. This is the government one

• We want to introduce a more tailored approach, to allow Work Coaches to build a relationship with an individual and determine what, if any, work-related activities an individual can participate in.
• By removing the Work Capability Assessment, we will ensure that those who are able to can progress in or towards work, without the worry of being reassessed and losing their benefits.

Basically saying that if a pip claimant chooses to work or not their extra income under UC will not be affected.

It is the benefits and work website, which is a reputable source.

We want to introduce a more tailored approach, to allow Work Coaches to build a relationship with an individual and determine what, if any, work-related activities an individual can participate in.
By removing the Work Capability Assessment, we will ensure that those who are able to can progress in or towards work, without the worry of being reassessed and losing their benefits.

Exactly as I said, work coaches will make the decision based on an individual level.

Basically saying that if a pip claimant chooses to work or not their extra income under UC will not be affected.

I haven’t said their extra income (presumably you mean the health element) under UC will be affected. Can you quote where I have? Or is that going to be ignored too, like the last time you said I posted something I hadn’t?

You've misunderstood. My issue is about how PIP will be affected and potentially watered down further so it can no longer provide the non-means tested, disability based support to people that it is designed to (although it should be at least double the amount it is).

My issue is not about how this change will affect UC. It's about how it might be used as part of an attempt to dilute disability support longer term, to merge it into UC of make PIP means tested or make the criteria for PIP about whether you can work or not. Disability support should be separate from low income support, they are not for the same purpose and linking them together could be dangerous because then they might try to gradually means test PIP which would be horrific for millions of disabled people and ridiculous given it is to cover the cost of disability and nothing to do with whether you can work or what your income is.

So why keep going on about it repeatedly in response to me when I've repeatedly pointed out to you that it does not answer the question, and you admit it doesn't?

No, I haven’t misunderstood! I was responding specifically to the sentence I quoted which was not about PIP being watered down it was about UC and work-related requirements.

I haven’t kept “going on about” PIP being means tested or the criteria changed. Again, can you quote where I have? I have responded to other aspects of your posts, but have not raised means testing/the criteria changing.

What? The issue is you keep going on about UC requirements when what I am talking about is the potential effect on PIP requirements. Then telling me to look at your link about UC requirements, which clearly is irrelevant to what I am talking about: the effect of all of this (or potential effect) on people changing criteria for or trying to water down PIP further.

I haven't said you've said anything about it. I have been speaking about the potential impacts on it and you keep trying to change the subject to UC and I keep telling you that doesn't answer the question, which is about how this might impact PIP and disabled people who DON'T claim UC.