Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Pleased that 4 mothers who took the government to court over universal credit won.

98 replies

birdsandroses · 11/01/2019 20:02

I confess not an AIBU, posting for traffic. I am very happy that four brave single working mothers won their court case about the way UC is administered, although it still could go to appeal. UC has been discussed a few times on Mumsnet with some sharing how it is causing a lot of hardship for some. Some posters have questioned this, though not all.

I have read that due to the way payments fall working claimants can find that if they get two salary payments falling over one calendar month, such as paid early due to bank holiday. the UC part is stopped that month. Some on threads here have said that if the payments are taken over a whole year then financially they don’t lose out but obviously when you are on a very tight budget it can cause huge problems if you are not aware you will suddenly have no UC payment that month. However, others have said the claimant does lose out financially over the year as well as the difficulty of budgeting when one month there is no payment. I couldn’t work it out as much as I tried. However, newspaper articles today are saying that people can be out of pocket. One of the four women who brought the case to court was cited as being £500 down over the year. I have now gathered the reason they are out of pocket is they lose work allowances for any month they are wrongly classed as not receiving a salary.

The Children Poverty Action group gives full details here in their press release about the case. cpag.org.uk/content/high-court-finds-dwp-unlawful-universal-credit-assessments

Amber Rudd has today finally acknowledged problems with UC and is making some changes although many organisations say though welcome they are still not enough.

OP posts:
PlumpSyrianHamster · 11/01/2019 20:04

The whole thing is entirely unsuitable for purpose and has cost a bloody fortune!

SaucyJack · 11/01/2019 20:10

Yes, I agree.

UC should be tailored according to whether a claimant is paid weekly/4 weekly/monthly (for those on a regular wage) and calculated and paid accordingly.

Perhaps claimants don’t lose any money when considered over the course of a year, but it’s fairly spiteful to cancel payments at the last minute instead of paying a (possibly lower) regular amount every payment period.

Guineapiglet345 · 11/01/2019 20:13

These things never work though due to the scale, tax credits is a ridiculous system and that’s been going for years. There’s got to be a simpler way, like just subsidising childcare rather than giving each family money to then pay to the childcare providers.

birdsandroses · 11/01/2019 20:13

So true Plump. I was also shocked to hear that the two child limit was going to apply to children born before April 2017 as well as after under UC if claiming for the first time since 2017. There would be transitional cover for existing claimants. I thought I had read when it was coming out that it would only apply to children born after but apparently not. It’s a whole other issue of course whether the 2 child limit is harsh overall.

Rudd has at least scrapped today making the two child limit applicable to children born before April 2017 under UC, but illustrates how this govt were happy to introduce such a measure initially.

OP posts:
DeloresJaneUmbridge · 11/01/2019 20:14

I am delighted for them and everyone else subject to this technicality. It could all have been avoided by dividing annual entitlement by 12 and then paying people on a set date each month.

High time it was challenged .

birdsandroses · 11/01/2019 20:14

@SaucyJack, the CPAG press release made it clear that some claimants can lose out financially over the calendar year due to loss of work allowances.

OP posts:
PlumpSyrianHamster · 11/01/2019 20:16

There's still also the minimum 5-week wait for any payment at all, minimum, people, and expecting people to pay upfront for childcare and then claim it back.

This isn't about saving money or making work pay and never has been. It's about punishing people for being poor.

Gentlygently · 11/01/2019 20:16

I have been waiting for a thread on this! I first read on mumsnet how the monthly payments was going to be so stupidly administrated, and was so pleased to see this extremely sensible ruling.

Willbeatjanuaryblues · 11/01/2019 20:18

It's a shame it needed to go this far before it was rectified but yes it's brilliant.

The whole thing sounds so badly thought out. No ones lives should be adverse affected by moves the government makes. You can't throw people under the bus whilst things work out.

Tiredemma · 11/01/2019 20:29

The NHS trust that I work for always pay us early before Christmas (generally the 19th). One of our single parent health care assistant had her UC stopped because of this.

Outrageous

Bluelonerose · 11/01/2019 20:34

Hopefully this means those in power are listening.
Imaging if everyone on uc took them to court. It's not fit for purpose it was supposed to make things easier. Who exactly has it made life easier for?

HelenaDove · 11/01/2019 20:48

Well thats fucking clever isnt it What if that NHS worker then couldnt afford to get to work especially over Christmas when transport / taxis etc cost more and so couldnt be at work at the busiest time.

Batshit Completely batshit.

birdsandroses · 11/01/2019 20:54

@plump, I agree for all the talk about UC was supposed to make the benefit system easier that is outweighed when Osborne in 2015 announced he had reduced work allowances saving the Treasury an estimated 3 billion a year by 2020. So it has been made into a cost cutting exercise too. There are a few people who will have a bit more each week under UC but overall more will receive less. Those who receive less includes the disabled and single working parents.

I think it’s another devious move by the govt to make it that some people will get more as these will share how they are getting more giving the impression that people aren’t worse off when many will be. This of course isn’t even covering the five week delay, sanctions etc

OP posts:
Jamrolypoly12 · 11/01/2019 21:08

Yep I’m a single working parent and I got paid early in December so had two salaries in one assessment period. My income & UC payment didn’t cover my bills.. I have a good family so luckily they had to support me or I’d be going to food banks this month. I also didn’t realise until 5 days before payment that I’d get so little so unable to plan/save/budget. It’s really unfair and it doesn’t even out next month even tho I have no pay in my assessment period as like you said I lose my working allowance

birdsandroses · 11/01/2019 21:15

@jamrolypoly12, so pleased for people like you.

OP posts:
TulipsInbloom1 · 11/01/2019 21:18

I don't understand why Gov doesn't arrange with employers to tack UC onto payslips. Or employers pay and are repaid.

PlumpSyrianHamster · 11/01/2019 21:26

I don't understand why Gov doesn't arrange with employers to tack UC onto payslips.

Because it was not created by anyone who has ever had to live paycheque to paycheque and who has no access to cheap credit, savings, other sources of money and a world of plenty. And it was never designed to make work pay but instead on feudal ideas that being poor is a moral and personal failing and that you get people to be unpoor by punishing them.

It won't work because it's not been created by anyone with a clue.

But they don't care. And people will still vote them in.

Boswellox · 11/01/2019 21:37

Not saying it's right but "in the olden days", one salary used to suffice. The advent of women into the full time workforce was played by the Right into dual salary requirement. Lone mums therefore often require the state to provide the missing dual salary element. Classic example of how the Left feeds into facilitating the Right by their support of female lone parenthood as an unquestionable good thing.

MitziK · 11/01/2019 21:50

It's pretty simple why it's a fucking stupid way of doing things, really.

Say somebody puts a claim in on the 14th of the month. After the waiting for the ID appointment, the actual claim appointment and the ridiculous length of time for the claim to be set up, they find that the assessment period is the 24th to the 23rd of each month (for example). Their salary goes in on the 24th.

Seems fine. Payments start turning up. Eventually. Two months after the claim was submitted.

BUT

They haven't managed to get the notification of earnings through, despite claiming that it is done automatically through the tax office by computer in real time.

By month 3, suddenly the payment screen says they're getting nothing in five days. They try and ask why. They're told 'read what it says on the screen'. Which says their earnings are three times higher than they actually are. Crap. No money this month. This is a bugger for paying childcare and rent in advance, never mind the rent/mortgage or getting prescription charges covered (the inevitable penalty fares for not ticking the box that doesn't exist on the prescription form - the one that should say 'is in receipt of Universal Credit' - come through. Hundred and twenty quid a time. You can appeal and they'll cancel it - if you know that they've got it wrong and you are entitled and not terrified into paying it by the threat of criminal charges and thousands of pounds of fines for not doing so).

The next month, the amount actually paid is a lot less. But at least it's something, right? Even if it's a five week month, it's still something.

Then, because the 24th of month 5 falls on a Sunday, payroll pays salaries on the Friday 22nd.

Month 6, log in and they're getting £0 because they've earned 'double' this month. It's a five week month. This is bloody tough.

Month 7, log in and your claim hasn't been updated at all. Two days later, you have to confirm a few things (that you've read the bit about not committing fraud, largely) and wait.

Three days later, you find out that your claim has been cancelled and backdatedly cancelled to two months ago, so you have to reclaim. From scratch. Taking into account that you're automatically locked out of the details of your previous claim, so can't access a single details. Three weeks later, you've finally got your proving your identity appointment, your boss is pissed off that you've taken time off (a whole afternoon) and you've still not received anything. It's Christmas, so payroll stick your salary in on the 21st.

So you get nothing again because you've had double salary in the 24th - 23rd December assessment period.

You might get something for January. Might. You'll find out after payday.

It is utter shit. And somebody was paid an absolute fuckton to come up with this method of calculating claims.

HelenaDove · 11/01/2019 23:17

" your boss is pissed off that you've taken time off (a whole afternoon)"

Ah but will they be pissed off enough to start paying a decent liveable wage so their employee wont have to claim UC.

If not then they will have to suck it up.

i think a lot of employers are going to find out that the times of having it both ways are coming to an end.

MyDcAreMarvel · 11/01/2019 23:18

People do loose out you don’t get the full amount the following month because you have a maximum payment per month.
It’s a lie to say it evens out.

Coronapop · 11/01/2019 23:24

A victory for common sense. The really incredible (and terrifying) thing is that anyone in authority ever thought such a system could work.

birdsandroses · 12/01/2019 00:12

@MyDcAreMarvel, yes, from today’s reports I have learnt that it is not true that it evens out over the year if you don’t get it one month due to the way the assessment periods are calculated.

OP posts:
MitziK · 12/01/2019 01:19

Very True, @birdsandroses. Have some sample numbers;

Assessment period/Month 1 - £1000 Salary paid, entitlement = £1300, UC payment of £300. Income is therefore £1300

Month 2 = normal salary paid, but AP2 takes into account salary from month 3 as well because they were paid on Friday, not Sunday. Assessment decides salary for month 2 is £2000, no UC entitlement. Actual income for month 2 is £1000.

Month 3 AP thinks claimant is not working. Due to taper off, entitlement decreases to £700 and out of work protocols trigger. Payment not guaranteed because claimant is at work and needs to get employer to agree to time off. If employer agrees, claimant gets £700. Looks like income is therefore £1700. UNLESS salary falls early again (like at Christmas). Then claimant is assessed at £1000, gets £300. Or if they are unable to take time off/is threatened with sack because they have no employment security/ZHC, claim is cancelled and no payment is made, claim is closed. Or claimant attends, employer sacks them, UC claimant is sanctioned due to claimant getting sack.

Claimant could get either £300+£300 = £600 in the 4 months if month 4 salary is early or £300 + £700 = £1000. Or £300 if the claim is closed.

Total income therefore varies between £4000 salary + £300, £4000 + £600 or £4000 + £700. Maximum is £4700, minimum £4300.

Had they used an ounce of intelligence in setting up the system and recognised that Salary was actually £1000 for every month. With an entitlement for £300 for each month = total UC would be £1200, giving an income of £4000 + £1200 = £5200.

Claimant is already down £700, £900 or £1200 in four months, just because the system does not recognise early payments due to weekends and bank holidays DO NOT MEAN CLAIMANTS HAVE DOUBLED THEIR INCOME.

Unless, of course, the millions paid to the consultants actually intended for this to happen...

BigChocFrenzy · 12/01/2019 05:37

Boswellox "the Left feeds into facilitating the Right by their support of female lone parenthood as an unquestionable good thing"

I'm neither Left nor Right,
but I'm old enough to remember when single mothers were expected to give up their babies for adoption

Now they have financial support and hence a choice, nearly all prefer to keep their babies.

Do you want to return to those times ?