Universal Credit won't be paid in months with 5 weeks. (WTF?) AIBU to think no one realises

[raisinsarenottheonlyfruit]

If you get paid weekly, and there are 5 weeks in a month, in those months your pay will likely go over the Universal Credit limit and your UC will be stopped. You will have to go without that month and apply again.

WTF are they thinking?

Have they never heard of averages FFS? (That's how Tax Credits works). This is going to screw over so many people. It's ludricous.

The people claiming UC aren't any richer that month, they get the same amount of money as if it was paid in 12 monthly chunks.

This will happen to thousands of people every time there's a month with 5 weeks. (I guess they mean 5 Mondays?)

This is farcical.

There's 5 weeks in January, so if you get paid weekly that's you fucked for February.

April, July, October and December also have 5 Mondays.

This is utterly farcical and just plain callous.

So you were penalised for knowing too much about a particular subject- honestly it beggars belief!

As a parent carer I have to go for work-focused interviews every 6 months as I also have a child under 5 which trumps the carer bit in the eyes of the Jobcenter. I had a lone parent adviser who got the bit between her teeth and had me coming in every 4 weeks because she was determined to get me into work. I have a pretty solid work history up until the last few years and she said I could go and work in a school where they would understand if I needed to take time off for my son. She threatened me with sanctions if I didn't update my CV, apply for jobs and do anything else she asked of me. I eventually had to get carers rights involved to get her to back off.

In contrast, my current adviser has common sense. She lets me do my interviews over the phone if I need to and even if I have to go to the Jobcentre I'm never there longer than about 10 minutes as nothing has changed and she fully accepts that there is very little I can do about my personal situation.

And so do I Ladyc just really stark telling someone incredibly vulnerable to stand outside somewhere in the rain to log-on because they are frightened of the consequences if they don't...sigh....

RightOnTheEdge so sorry

I don't think that the government see people on benefits as vulnerable, I think we're all leeches in their eyes.

Yup Ladyc got threatened with sanctions .... I have recruitment qualifications too....I still think my adviser was pissed off I knew more than they did about sourcing a job....so tax payers money was duly spent on a place for me on a course I ended up running part of. You literally couldn't make this shit up could you? So pleased you were able to stand your ground!

Your situation is laughable, you definitely couldn't make it up!

35 hours a week is not a lot to ask of people. If they can't afford childcare then perhaps they should have budgeted before making the huge financial commitment that having children brings.

1. If you have two children, you work 25 hours a week and you then have to spend 35 hours a week job searching, that is a significant amount of time.
2. Have you considered the possibility that people may have chosen to have children when they were in a position to afford the financial commitment.

It's not punishing people by expecting them not to work part time or work at all when they are physically able to do so. The welfare system was designed to catch those on bad times not those that have wants or desires but don't want to fund themselves
What about when they are mentally unable to do so? People with mental health problems and learning difficulties are being forced onto JSA and being sanctioned? That's punishment. Oh, and the definition of sanctions: Punitive

Been back working for several years now but, god I don't miss the job centre days at all. They had no idea how to deal with me other than with the same size fits all approach. When I told them that I ended up running a big chunk of the course there was much opening and closing of mouth fish impressions, followed by, 'oh well at least you met your contract and won't be sanctioned now!' It's laughable....but it really demonstrated that I was seen as somehow less than others in society owing to my circumstances at the time!

Don't get me started on sanctions- my friend was sanctioned because she missed an appointment. The appointment was set for 10.15 and she got the letter at 10.45. 3 month sanction. By the time it would have gone to appeal the sanction would have been lifted.

I'm not saying that sanctions are never ever appropriate but more often than not they're harsh and unnecessary

It's always worth appealing a sanction even if it would be lifted by the time of appeal. This is because having previous sanctions on your record can increase the length of subsequent sanctions.

Common sense not applied! Friend of mine has just won an appeal after having everything stopped following a 3rd party malicious report that was taken on face value and not investigated. She has had months of worry and hardship. Then it gets reinstated with no apology or explanation. Grrrrrrr!

Pencils she was advised by the CAB at the time not to bother for the reason I stated above. Possibly the person who told her this wasn't trained very well in that area.

So under the new UC if you are unemployed does that mean if you are sanctioned you have zero money coming through? As it stands atm if you have dc at least you may have cb and housing benefit paid.

My area has just gone over to UC, and there was a big campaign by our Housing Assc. reminding tenants of this, advising them to prepare and holding drop in sessions so they could talk to staff and prevent any problems in paying rent.

Spare the fake outrage and learn to read. It isn't the child that's referred to as a child element - it's that part of the benefit paid because you have a child that is the "child element"

But don't let the odd fact stop a good foamy mouth comment

Don’t be a dick cdTaylor

You know perfectly well that what I mean is a family with a child will lose the child element that is paid for that child dependant on DOB a full academic year before they stop being able to claim CB for them.
And befor tax credits would have stopped considering them a child.

Which given that you appear to be a bit hard of thinking

In real life means a kid that started say a level 3 course at exactly the correct time so no gaps or breaks in education would have previously remained named on a CTC award so the parents would have received the child element for the entire 2 year course.

Under UC if they happened to be born in say AUG their parents would lose the child element for them smack bang half way through the course a couple of weeks after they turn 19 instead of just before they turn 20.

If you can’t understand why this means low income families will struggle to be able to manage to keep what is a child under all other benefit rules in education for the last year of their course then you perhaps ought to have a little think about it and remember how privileged that makes you.

'there was a big campaign by our Housing Assc. reminding tenants of this, advising them to prepare and holding drop in sessions so they could talk to staff and prevent any problems in paying rent.'

How do you pay your rent when you have no money? How to you 'prepare' for having no money when you have no money? UC is causing huge problems for renters. The tenant gets evicted for rent arrears, meaning the council doesn't have to house them.

Thing is, though, that in the "4 week" months, the UC is actually overpaid, as it's based on 4 weeks of income rather than a month, i.e. 4.3 weeks. So in reality, you're getting a third more UC than entitled to for 3 months and then get none in month 4, which just balances it out. The answer is to save some of the "monthly" UC in the knowledge you won't get any for month 4. It's a pretty steady pattern. No one is losing out - it's just the way it's paid. Completely bonkers and crazy system - I'm not saying it's right. Just saying that people aren't really losing a month's UC every 4 months - it may "feel" that way in terms of cash in the bank, but it's not.

Oh and before you come and be so patronising again.

Having checked this with CPAG and attended a UC training course provided by the DWP and clarified with the dwp ministerial correspondence team I am fully aware I am correct. That is the rule

ZepellinBend - No they can (theoretically!) only sanction the standard allowance of your UC, not the housing costs or child elements. CB remains a separate benefit in any case so would not be affected.

It's more complicated if the claimant has some income from e.g. work, as the different elements are not kept separate in a claim. It is possible (as I understand it!) that someone on a small amount of top up UC could lose it all in a sanction if their whole entitlement was less than the standard allowance (£317.82/month, less if under 25).

For couples, if one partner is sanctioned they can lose up to 50% of the couple's standard allowance (£498.89/month, less if under 25).

Our Housing Assc were allowing tenants to overpay rent to help cover the payments when UC came in. It was allowing them to prepare and budget in advance.

Karrie it makes no sense to assess people's income this way. It's massively stressful even if you do manage to 'plan' for it. People who rely on benefits (and their dependants, landlord etc) need that income to be reliable.

Am wondering whether there will be children who end up in care as their mothers can'r afford to feed them or are made homeless?

Recently a young mum local to us was begging on fb for food

How anyone can vote Conservative is beyond me, its an inhumane and cruel system.

Oh yes that's another fun thing we are seeing - at the same time as people are being moved onto UC and getting their rent paid in arrears, HAs have started a 'pay your rent on time every time' campaign which means people get threatening letters and phone calls every single month when there's nothing they can do about it.

Thanks Pencils, I wasn't aware cb was separate. I've been trying to avoid reading about UC as I knew it would make me feel a bit panicked like I am now.

I understand your examples and that is scary as that extra is what people rely on to pay bills and and eat. I know personally how one setback like a broken electrical item can cause a knock on effect where you struggle to get on top of things again.

How many dc do you have WHATISTHISNIGHTMARE?

'Our Housing Assc were allowing tenants to overpay rent to help cover the payments when UC came in. It was allowing them to prepare and budget in advance.'

I wonder how many people in HA housing have money to overpay rent. If you are on HB, only your rent is covered. There's no extra payment to overpay rent.