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.

No mention of the dead man, or the couple in a tent with their children being looked after by the local authority.

When I re-skimmed the thread, I was looking for info about how UC is supposed to work generally. I have a long way to go understanding that, anecdotal data is very low-value information, as in it tells you very little. It isn't really relevant to someone of my level of understanding.

"Oh, and you get less money, but an extra pay-cheque, so possibly your overall income is not that different from any other month? "
Your annual income is the same but the system will think you earned double.

I will never be in a position to claim UC

This comment is made with what - a crystal ball 🔮

Thank you Sing and Ivy

Has it occurred to anyone that most ordinary people just won't understand this or be able to balance their budgets if they vary from month to month? I can't understand it and I'm no fool, fairly average intelligence. What about people in a worse situation or less intelligent than me? And no phone line to actually speak to a human being. This has disaster written all over it.

I had a change of circumstances last year that should have meant that I was entitled to more money, but after speaking to mental health social workers and the staff in the job centre I haven't claimed it. They told me not to mess up my claim if it was functioning ok now, that I would regret it and told me that this would be a disaster for their clients especially the most vulnerable ones.

I don't think firesuit meant that in a bad way. They said that this is incomprehensible.

It isn't really relevant to someone of my level of understanding

Callous as fuck.

UC is treating everyone regardless of circumstances equally.

How do you work that one out?

Two people working part time, NMW, identical hours, but one gets paid monthly, the other gets paid weekly.

One of them will get UC 12 months a year, the other gets it 8 months a year. The same amount in those months, just one person gets less overall.

Please explain to me how on earth that is fair?

I do like to understand both the tax and benefits systems, and I'd like to understand UC better.

People will sugger because of this, some may even lose their homes because of this policy, do you understand that?

*sugger = suffer.

UC is treating everyone regardless of circumstances equally

A CAB volunteer upthread literally just said this "variation in the way claimants are treated for example under ESA there is a premium if the adult claimant gets a disability benefit. This doesn’t exist in a new UC claim even if they agree claimant can’t work. If a claimant on ESA has to apply due for UC moving house/other reason not connected to illness sometimes a disability premium is sometimes included (transitional protection) but sometimes not."

I can't understand how that's even legal? Someone on benefits is entitled to a certain amount, not x amount or z depending on who processes their claim.

The more I read about Universal Credit the more it seems like a colossal clusterfuck. I hope the Tories will end up victims of it too, and sooner rather than later...

firesuit you may be more subtle that yellow et al but your opinions seem to me just as ignorant.

1 the systems govt set up NEVER work as they claim they will (just look at the csa debacle)

2 'a few mins on the internet' not all claimants can access or operate online systems, I don't have a PC or laptop, local libraries and careers centres and even job centres are closing all over the country, even if you do have a library or similar available there's usually less than 6 computers with loads of people wanting to use them (not only for claims but the job seeking which mainly must be done online in order to prove it), I feel safe in guaranteeing it wouldn't be 'a few mins' either, govt cuts costs on IT systems so you end up with shit software and sites that crash frequently and for long periods. Then there's people with mental conditions that affect being able to use an online system

3 "and there's no break in your claim (just one month with no UC due to higher income) then this doesn't seem so bad." Oh really?? Ever lived hand to mouth? With debt? It also means higher wage one month means in the month you need it you don't get it. And I highly doubt it will ACTUALLY end up being 1 month for anyone

4 you are being far too naive re 6 week wait (deliberately I believe) as has been said REPEATEDLY on this thread, this is POLICY not due to practicalities in design, NOBODY has to wait 6 weeks for their first pay in a new job, the PEOPLE (not just numbers) waiting are not in a position to cover this fallow period.

5 . "I will never be in a position to claim" UC oh really? Are you royalty? Or at least landed nobility? Because unless you are you can't possibly know that.

6 "It isn't really relevant to someone of my level of understanding." Well fuck me! A genius too - but one that lacks compassion

7 it's not designed to 'balance out' over 2 months of differing income as there's an amount of UC you're entitled to depending on if you're single, pay rent, have children (plus ages and health status of the children), your health status etc. If you are believed by the computer to have earned too much in a one month period to get UC you don't get it or its reduced. The system doesn't understand that 2 payments in one calendar month have to pay all your bills over a 2 month period too. If you're paid 4 weekly that's only 8 weeks pay you've got - not 2 months, you're short at least a week.

Your language and tone may be softer but the message is still 'I don't see what the plebs are complaining about'

Tinygem Tue 24-Oct-17 12:24:54
You've nailed it there frequency. I work in retail on a 16 hour contract but I'm expected to be available for over 70 hours a week. I would love a full time position but my employer only gives 16 hour contracts maximum. Nobody knows from one week to the next what days/hours they will be working, so impossible to juggle another job with it. It's time that these practices were outlawed, if it wasn't for tax credits/universal credit they wouldn't be able to fill a lot of these positions.

Care to comment, Yellow?

Do you know that there are huge swathes of the UK where people would give their right arm for guaranteed, set hours weekly so that they could plan for a second or third job, or try to get a qualification that would lead to a secure job?

Kath Is this ^^ a problem caused by 'society'?

Firesuit
If it were to start worrying about more abstract factors like whether you are paid weekly or only on a full moon, or if it tried to track your income over a period of time, that would be a level of complexity that would cause hugely more fuck-ups.

So the simple solution is to make employers employ more full time workers and pay a livable wage, no?
Instead, billions of taxpayer money is spent tinkering with a system that accepts as its basic foundation the notion that employers are not going to pay enough to actually live on.

Meanwhile, those who are caught in this system on the receiving end get their intelligence insulted by exhortations to budget for the built in lean times. They are however, considered to be clever enough to be gaming the system left, right and centre. Which are they - so stupid and feckless that they need mind-boggling advice or criminal masterminds?

If businesses are only able to stay afloat by keeping labour costs to a level where taxpayers are forced to subsidise the employees, then maybe taxpayers have the right to ask questions about management practices, decision-making, executive pay, and the business model in general. He who pays the piper, etc...

Fwiw, whether an individual gets paid monthly or weekly is patently not an abstract matter. The genius who realised that money could be saved by taking advantage of the fact that the months of the year are irregular in length deserves the Ebenezer Scrooge Memorial plaque.

Brilliant post Math

Well done Math. Absolutely spot on.

Care to reply bitches?

Apparently the arse has recently tweeted this:

Is there another planet he can be sent to.

Firesuit, how would it conceivably introduce an impossible level of complexity to work on a four weekly rather than a monthly basis?

My DH gets paid weekly and we have never had it stopped because of a 5 week month, it’s never been stopped or been asked to reclaim for anything including chance of circumstances, they just adjusted the payments and we were paid as normal.

I’m in no way saying it’s perfect, just sharing my experience

There are a lot of challenges going through to benefit decisions. Mostly this is through appeals to Tribunal. Going to the upper tier tribunal is possible so often supported by a charity because it may need legal advice.

I think some of the variation is due to it being a new system so the process is being developed. However things like the transfer of a premium is a policy and there should be the same rule for everyone- this isn’t a a decision that should vary.

I may be mistaken but Isn't that the same prick who wants to ban abortion?

I’m so confused. Can anyone explain using my made up figures?

Say 2 people get paid 12000 a year. And gets UC of 6000 a year.
One has a permant contract so will get 1000.00 per month wages and top UC of 500.00 per month. It all stays the same. Every month.

One is on a 16 hour contract, so it differs each month. one month might earn 700.00, say on 31st Sept. So should be due 800.00 UCs. Will they have to wait until the 31st Oct for the UCS??

I do accept that what I’m saying is anecdotal, just the people I’m seeing. Wider citizens advice collect instances from across the country.

Below is a citizens advice summary. On debt
“ The people we see on Universal Credit are nearly one and a half times as likely to seek advice on
debt issues compared to those on other benefits.”

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/welfare%20publications/Universal%20Credit%20recommendations_DIGITAL.pdf

This is the most recent full report on their website

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/welfare%20publications/Delivering%20on%20Universal%20Credit%20-%20report.pdf

I may be mistaken but Isn't that the same prick who wants to ban abortion?

Yes it is:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-41172426