Changes to Pension Credit.

[HelenaDove]

From 15 May Pension Credit couple rate will only be paid if both are over 65

twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1084920673296961536

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-01-14/HCWS1249/

it has far reaching implications which the hard of thinking havent thought of.

a change of address is going to be classed as a change of circumstances so after 15th May there will be even less pensioners willing to try and downsize or even considering a move to sheltered housing despite a need to so even less social housing being freed up.

This country doesnt seem to mind them having adult responsibilities though

I don't think the country has any say in it. You'll also find many people don't agree with parents putting caring responsibilities on children. Children should be free to just be children.

but what has child carers got to do with pension credit

social care for adults is sadly lacking i will admit and needs looking at in detail

because ppl are saying that ppl who dont get Carers Allowance cant be carers/classed as carers . Child carers dont get it so im pointing that out to show how illogical that belief is.

anyway this thread has served its purpose and so have i i think.

time for me to find a new forum.

helena im sorry you feel like that but just because people dont agree with you dosent make them wrong

people will always have their own personal interests at heart that is natural and we are all the same like that its just this topic some dont agree with you

i wish you well

@ReanimatedSGB

But whatever your PERSONAL circumstances (and I really can't see this policy ever affecting me negatively as I've been single 16 years and honestly think it very unlikely I'll ever be in a live in relationship again, just doesn't appeal to me) this policy WILL affect you on a wider level in terms of the strain on housing, social care & nhs. That makes it everyone's problem.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the policy isn't just penalising the younger party of the couple but the older one too?

I can understand only giving the younger party equivalent benefits to that which they'd get if in a relationship with someone the same age/younger than them but why remove the additional income deemed necessary for the older party? They're supposed to still be eligible for the extra income and if single or in a different age difference relationship they would be.

THAT is the part that doesn't make sense.

As for how carers of all ages are treated - that's always been appalling but apparently now is going to be getting much worse.

However, I wonder if a couple like Helena & dh are then deemed ineligible for PC would Helena then be eligible for carers allowance if the dh instead gets disability benefits? Or have govt barred them from both options?

This policy is perfectly fair in that it stopped discriminsting on the basis of age. Why should someone deemed never to have to work again because they happen to be with a partner of pensionable age when the same person married to a younger partner would?

As its been stated, the issue of caring is a different matter. Carers care for people of all ages, whether entitled to CA or not. There has to be a threshold to getting benefits as a carer. As it is, the rules are the most flexible of all benefits, but the one trigger is indeed for the person who requires care meeting the PIP care requirements. Ultimately, if the person is not entitled to PIP, they are deemed not requiring 35 hours of care a week, therefore allowing the person who looks after them to look for work.

I'm glad they changed that rule.

The 'fairness' is selective though swing.

As well as the complications that helena has mentioned, to claim carer's allowance you have to care for 35+ a week and you get £64.60 per week. For 35 hours (equivalent of a full time job), that's just £1.85 per hour. Plus the random hours, getting up at night maybe etc.

If you have to care for 70 hours (only 10 hours a day so not unexpected for some disabilities) you don't have time or energy for a paid job as well, or the option to claim a double allowance, or to claim another allowance for a another carer to do the 35-70 hours.

That's clearly not fair.

Plus the other changes that kick in at pension age eg changes to PIP vs Attendance Allowance and this can affect people's budgets.

There are many more examples.

So it might seem as though the PC change are correcting an 'unfairness' in the single vs couple rate of PC, but what it shows up is the unfairness and inadequacy of other benefits/ support. And if the UC system was interested in fairness rather than just cuts, there are so many things that could have been improved, but yet all we have seen throughout the new regs is (the most vulnerable) people losing money.

Carers allowance is a pittance but to be honest no-one ever checks up on what amount of caring is done. Of course many people do way in excess of 35+ hours a week and some do way less. People on PIP could work and their spouse could still claim carers. If someone's only income is carers allowance then it is topped up by other benefits so it's unrealistic to work it out to £1.85 an hour unless carers allowance is solely a persons only income. they should link the amount of Carers allowance to the rate of PIP/ DLA, as people on the highest PIP rates are likely to be needing more care hours per week. On Universal credit people can claim the carers element regardless of how many hours they work or how much they earn. So for example in a mixed age couple where one is over pension age , if the younger person is working and caring they can earn over the £120 threshold for carers allowance and not claim the carers allowance but still get the £156 extra carers premium as well as any other help they are entitled to like rent element.

Moneybox has a programme this week in part on ths on radio 4 (on iplayer). Like many I support this change although I can certainly understand the position of those who don't particularly those who are in areas where the younger partner cannot find work despite our having some of the highest employment levels now in much of the country , almost highest since the 1950s.

@thebeesknees123

That's clearly not fair
You are arguing that carer allowance is not fair. This is a different debate to the pension issue.

I personally think that CA is a farce. Too many people claiming it just because a relative got PIP/DLA and not providing anything close to 35h care that they would otherwise have to pay someone to provide. At the sane time, it is an insult to those who do provide that intensive level of care, many of whom had to give up a good job to provide.

swingof things - that is exactly what I was trying to say. I see people advising all the time that it's fine to claim carers allowance even if they are just supervising / checking up on someone with dementia by phone a few times a day ! How can that amount to 35 hours caring? No -one checks up what caring is being done. Then you get others looking after children with severe disabilities , never getting a break 24/7 and they get the same amount for basically giving up their life to care for their loved ones. There is no justice in the system at all.

so what is the solution to the pension being cut for those under pension age

Most people are still failing to address the issue of people of pension age not getting pension age benefits on this rule.
It really isn’t about the younger person. The main issue is that the older person cannot claim the pension age benefits that they should be able to claim and would be able to claim had their partner not been younger.
Do older people with younger partners not have the same expenses as other older people?

good point ,even though i dont agree with the younger person being paid the pension rate i dont think the pensioner should have a much lower rate

this topic is clearly quite complex,whether the gov looks at it again i guess we will have to wait and see

i imagine in relation the numbers are fairly small compared to tax credit, esa etc so may not get such public support i m guessing

totally - pension credit is awarded because your household income is lower than the amount which the government deems you need to live on. If you have a working partner bringing in income you don't need topping up as all income is considered joint. If you have a working age partner that is fit and well and able to work then under the new system they are expected to look for work.

They as a couple would still get topped up by UC just not the same amount.

One solution is marry someone your own age. Too too often we see much older man and younger woman. If this helps stop that awful sexist combination so much the better.

@whatsthestory123 I think you are wrong about public support In fact i know you are as well as being a complete hypocrite.

I take it you are claiming Child Benefit. You are claiming what you entitled to though. As are we.

And i saw through an AS search that you have one of uni age and one who is 12 so a five to six year gap. wernt parents expected to look for work once a child hit seven at one point.

See i can theorize too. Not nice is it!

And if you are so every man for himself @whatsthestory123 why on earth were you asking for help on the Panorama/Universal Credit thread.

Perhaps you should start practicing what you preach.

the numbers will be small? Youve never heard of the baby boom then.