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.

Gym it depends where you live. However if you are already on benefits and nothing changes then you stay on them. As yet there is no firm timetable for people being moved (transition) to UC even if nothing has changed and the UC timetable has slipped a number of times over the years.

"And do they expect people to apply for a job with more hours even if it's a temporary post and then expect them to leave a permanent post of less hours to do it if they were offered the job?"

Yes they do.

But then they'll end up with lots of unemployed people when their contracts aren't extended. This makes no sense.

Even in my place of work everyone is part time, apart from management and any new staff taken on are only on temp contracts.

It makes perfect sense to the government , they can tick the box that's says. Look UC works Linnet is earning more and claiming less. for three months only,

Strikeout fail.

Linnet when the employers start objecting (and they will) this will be shelved PDQ

UC hasn't come to our area yet and dh is trying to get a job with more hours than he already has but everything is part time. Trying to get something to fit around his hours already is hard too as they want people to work weekends and he already works weekends. We're hopeful something will come along he keeps trying and applying for jobs so fingers crossed.

It's the same for me I work part time I'd like to pick something up on my two days off but advertised jobs always seem to clash with the days I already work.

FFS. I'm going to be even worse off I think - I just read something about how UC will screw self employed people. I'm self employed.

Too tired to make sense if it now will try tomorrow ...

Raisins - yes the self employed are in trouble. When you’re all refreshed, google minimum income floor.

Undercoverbanana the state pension without any income based top ups is CONTRIBUTION BASED and for that under the new rules you have to have paid in for 35 years OH paid on for 45 years before getting his remind me how many years does a person need to be paying into this country before being able to claim TC or CTC ?

The state pension is taxable CTC and TC are not taxable

Looking at the calculations for a lone parent with 2 kids working 16 hours NLW so 6240 pa CTC and TC combined every 4 weeks is 775.49 so that's an income of around the 16k mark now compare that with pensioners and people earning that from salary

Someone earning that will pay tax and NI on the whole lot less their tax free allowance
OH gets less than that roughly 15k a year made up of his state pension and private pension, both pensions taken individually are well below his tax free allowance which is the same as a working age person, BUT for tax purposes both pension are added together that takes him over the limit so he pays tax and we have no problem with that by the way.

Someone on 16 hours NLW would not pay tax or NI on that salary and don't pay tax on their tax credits

As it happens both DH are I agree with the majority thinking on UC even though we would never be in a position to have to claim (and yes I KNOW this for a fact)

I haven't read all posts but I just knew there would someone whining about what pensioners get or trying to make a point about how easy pensioners get their pensions, FYI BTW mixed age couples with one of pension age will have to go onto UC from next as PC rules are changing.

Through my job I work with vulnerable families and single people escaping DV, who usually have a lot of other support needs like mental health, accessing benefits, tenancy related problems etc. It's in a Universal credit area.
To tell you how difficult it's been would take up the whole thread.
The biggest issue we've had is with the rent being paid by UC, with people who are only on introductory tenancies who are in arrears through no fault of their own, with people just out of refuge, homelessness etc getting letters they will be evicted directly due to UC causing rent arrears. Despite repeated phonecalls to housing offices and UC 'helpline' no one seems to know what to do or give any straight answers.
Another thing which is really concerning is the projects we are involved in are covered by the Supporting People grant, which we've now heard will change and cut beyond all recognition by 2019/2020.
So around about the time families are transitioning from TC to UC, those who need extra help, or who are escaping DV, are in debt etc, support services who can help them will be cut to the bone and they will be left to flounder. With even more pressure being put on the statutory services like social services, the NHS, police etc.
In our county I can just see a massive shitstorm in a couple of years.

Oldsu You can't really compare a family with two children to a couple on a pension. Doesn't really work and certainly isn't a fair comparison.
Benefits are taxed at source, Thatcher ensured that during her first term.
As for your comments about pensions being contribution based, that's contributed into your own pension. People in work are contributing. Some people out of work are contributing, they volunteer, brownie leaders, charity shop workers or Carers who save the government an absolute fortune but are paid £62.00 per week.

What is it you broadly agree with regarding Universal Credit? Children going without? People going without food, heating, losing their homes? Or is it just that as you and your dh worked hard you feel you can judge others who for whatever reason are not able to work the hours you did (jobs not available, child care issues, running away from DV)?

ONe of the worst things with uC is cutting Didability premiums. We already had years of cuts and loses to DLA/PIP and ESA but to cut the same people again is so unjust. Disabled people need more money. It’s not like being temporary unemployed or looking after a young child it’s often for the whole of your life. One thing saying UC makes work pay- but if you have jumped through all hoops to show you are too ill to work why should system screw you again. I’m sorry only those who work benefit, so by default if you can’t you are stuffed. Yes I’m protected but means I get zero increase until it’s equal so what in next 25y not a single penny. Even though of course everything will raise and of course will constantly be reassessed as to their system. If UC really is amazing and all money we will save by getting people back to work why do the most vulnerable and their carers need get another hit.

" FYI BTW mixed age couples with one of pension age will have to go onto UC from next as PC rules are changing."

Yes. What this means is that couples with an age gap (lets say its a 23 year gap like me and DH) they will be classed as being a working age couple for the purposes of UC. until the younger one reaches pension age. So as retirement age will be 67 they will only be classed as being of pension age when the younger one reaches this age so FOR THE PURPOSES OF UNIVERSAL CREDIT the older one will be classed as being of working age until they are 90!
Madness.

Is the younger half of the couple going to be expected to travel all over the place looking for work and be subject to all the conditioniality while being expected to care for an older , possibly ailing spouse.

Fucking stupid.

This happened last month (I was paid 24th Aug then 22nd Sept so twice with a 31 day period) so we received nothing at all. We assumed that their records would therefore show that this month I received no salary at all within the 30 day period (22 Sept to 24th Oct - that's assuming they go by the number of actual days in a calendar month) however, somehow, this month they are suggesting that DP and I have earned more than double our joint monthly income.

Thanks for explaining, this sounds really crap. Sounds like there are two issues, the month-end one and whatever has gone wrong with the current month.

Is there any chance they will accept an email with photo attachments of your payslips as evidence, rather than having to go in? I suspect I'm being hopeless optimistic.

In terms of the underlying problem, it looks to me like a design flaw in UC, that will screw with anyone whose UC date is close to their salary date. I wonder if UC or salary dates can be moved so this doesn't happen in future? That would be a practical workaround, not a solution to the flaw, which needs a more fundamental fix. I suspect it would be easier to get an employer to change a salary date than UC to alter their date, as the UC date is probably fixed by law.

From what I vaguely remember reading this week, I don't think they go by number of days for a UC month, I think they use a fixed date each month. So if your UC date is 23, a salary payment on 22 will be within the month and 24 after it. But if 24 in one month is followed by 22 in the next, then both will fit in a UC month that ends on 23rd.

The more I think about it, it really does seem a ridiculous design flaw that a monthly salary properly notified can cause such a big problem.

Having said that, if it weren't for the second error (whatever causes them to think you have double income in month you should have been treated as having less than usual) then I think this could actually have worked in your favour. If your income is legitimately very big in one month and consequently lower in others, what you lose in the one month could be more than out-weighed by inflated UC in the others. (I saw some documents on-line that indicate they look out for employers gaming the system to increase employee's UC payouts.)

(I think that theoretically, under a naive interpretation of the rules, a canny employee who earns 12K a year could ask for a contract that paid it all in one month, and collect maximum UC in the other eleven. Except the law allows them to ignore the actual pay timing when they suspect someone of gaming the system, and instead make the payments "the secretary of state" thinks appropriate. Or something like that, saw it in a document I skimmed earlier in the week.)

So when dh reaches pension age in 5 years time and I'm mid 40s still he won't get his state pension? He will get UC? I'll have to divorce him!

He will get his state pension. The UC replaces Pension Credit.

He will still get state pension but for the purposes of UC he will be classed as still being of working age as the UC class you as a working age couple.

The best thing about Universal Credit is that it is designed to ensure that no-one would be better off claiming benefits than going out to work.
It's just a shame that it's taken so long for that ridiculous situation to be rectified.

Not as bad as I thought! Thanks.

Can I just ask for people who understand this better than me -

I went for an interview today, it was for a full time job. Similar roles locally start at 18k so when I applied I assumed about that amount, assumed that would cut out all help apart from child benefit and had worked out I could just afford to take the job.

But when I got to the interview, because it’s a smaller firm the starting salary there is actually 14k. Universal credit doesn’t come in here until next month so the official calculator won’t let me input the data. The one on entitledto says I would get help but if that happened and I did qualify for help, if I’m already working full time, does that theoretically mean I wouldn’t have to attend the Job centre or hunt for work? Because I can’t see them being happy about me needing time off to go.

Susaannah read the thread FGS.

I really cant wait for when goady fuckers are inadvertently affected by this in ways like ive described upthread.

Because i will be doing the "i told you so" dance all over their threads.

Helena, I'm not trying to 'goad' anyone, I'm just stating a fact.

Since the crackdown on the hugely bloated welfare state, the numbers claiming benefit has dropped as more of them are now in work.

"In work" covers zero hours and temporary contracts. It also covers people who aren't actually in work but stop claiming for other reasons.
I am entitled to contribution based ESA, I am in receipt of PIP. I don't claim ESA because I am not well enough to cope with the claim process so according to the government I am "in work".

Decent, secure jobs, Susannah?

And at what cost in human suffering, illness and even death to disabled people, the vulnerable and children? How many people have been pushed into destitution, lost their homes, and childcare? How many are worth those extra jobs?

What about the huge toll on the NHS and social services dealing with the misery this government has imposed on people?

Do you really think it's worth it?

I know, here's an idea. How about getting more poeple ito jobs by creating new job opportunities? WTF is wrong with that? Why aren't they even trying, can you tell me that?

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2017/halton-housing-trust/

"27 October 2017
Committee Chair Frank Field MP calls evidence submitted to the Committee by Halton Housing Trust the "most damning" he has ever read on what he describes as Department for Work and Pensions "maladministration."

Halton Housing Trust written evidence
Inquiry: Universal Credit rollout
Work and Pensions Committee
Food bank referrals double
The Trust has accumulated over £400,000 of arrears as a direct result of the rollout of Full Service Universal Credit. This means that just 18% of its tenants owe 55% of all its arrears.Over the last 12 months the number of referrals the Trust has made to local food banks has more than doubled.

The Trust reports on the frequent wrong categorisation of benefit claimants' eligibility for Advance Payments while Universal Credit is being processed.

In a sample of 1,252 tenants the Trust found that the majority of claimants were eligible for a Benefit Transfer Advance as they were moving from a so-called legacy benefit (like Jobseeker’s Allowance) onto Universal Credit. This is paid back during the first 12 months of a Universal Credit claim.

Advance payments issues
Those claimants who were offered Advance Payments were offered a New Claims Advance that had to be paid back within 6 months: the submission details the even bigger financial problems this caused for families. In addition, the evidence reports:

The Department refuses to amend the recovery period of the Advance Payment, from 6 months to 12 months, even in the instances where they acknowledge that the claimants should have had a Benefit Transfer Advance.
Recovery of the Advance Payment commences immediately with the first Universal Credit payment. This means claimants are continuously playing catch up and are instantly put in debt when the repayment is deducted.
As the Advance Payment of either kind are recovered directly from the Universal Credit award, they are being given priority over other essential/actual priority outgoings.
When Advanced Payments have been provided there is a lack of any explanation to the customer that this includes a personal allowance and housing cost element. In many cases customers are unsure as to what the money they are receiving is for or what the levels of Advance will be.
Personal budgeting advice unavailable
Despite the Department advertising the availability of personal budgeting advice:

Halton Housing Trust found that this advice was not available to the vast majority of applicants. This is despite it being an essential element for many applicants at the start of the Universal Credit application process.
Local Authorities have been awarded funding to offer Personal Budgeting Support. Despite this, the number of referrals made by the Department locally in Halton has been very low.
Lack of coordinated approach
Further examples cited by the Trust include:

Many employers choose to pay their employees early before the Christmas period. The Universal Credit regulations consider this as an increase in income and not an early payment. This triggers a review of their claim, with no payments being made until the end of the subsequent month (January).
A lack of coordinated approach between the NHS and DWP. The Trust has recently supported a tenant who received a £50 fine for ticking the “JSA” box on a prescription form, because the form has not been updated with a "Universal Credit" option for receiving free prescriptions, and there are no plans to do so
The Universal Credit application prompts a cessation of Healthy Start vouchers if the claimants were previously in receipt along with their legacy benefit. The Healthy Start system does not yet recognise Full Service Universal Credit.
'Throwing claimants’ finances into chaos'
Committee Chair, Rt Hon Frank Field MP, said:

"It would be difficult to think, in all my period of Chair of the Select Committee, of a piece of evidence that is so damning on the DWP maladministration which is mangling poorer people's lives. This maladministration is throwing Universal Credit claimants’ finances into chaos"