Universal Credit

[Foxholer]

Correct - and the lockdown - for whatever reason - stopped both employer and contracting companies making payments he was due.

If the payment had come in before he registered for UC it would have counted as savings and would not have impacted his UC amount. All I am saying is that if it is OK to have £6k in savings when you register for UC, then under the unprecedented circumstances the rule could be waived for income due from work done before registering but not received, and so not counted in the UC calc. That's all.

As it happens my lad is aiming to get a job and come off UC before he gets paid what he is owed as self-employed. It is more likely that that pay due from his employment will hit before he comes off UC and that will reduce his UC.

I do consider that 'unfair'! UC should deem payments made but not collected - for all reasons I can think of - as 'savings' for calculating any amount due!

 

[Old Skier]

Has he mentioned in his journal his circumstances and explained his debt issues and ask to speak with an advisor.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Has he mentioned in his journal his circumstances and explained his debt issues and ask to speak with an advisor.

He tries to speak with his advisor very regularly and yes - his journal is his record. I don't actually know whether he's mentioned the debt he built up after registering and before his first payment 5 weeks later - that debt he expected to be able to clear immediately the pay he'd earned came in.

The fact that someone with a bit of money saved can find themself getting a higher UC than someone with nothing and depending on an income at end of a month to survive does not seem right. If UC is aimed at supporting you when out of work and income works against you - then perhaps so should any savings - after all you can draw on savings as income. And many on UC with savings will do just that as their savings are often there for a rainy day.

 

[Neilds]

Except - from what I understand.... Had it been paid before applying/going onto UC, it would not have been 'taken into account when working out any benefit payments'!

This is not correct. My wife works in benefits so can speak with some knowledge. If it is paid for a job, it is income not savings. If this was paid in the month prior to applying for UC then it would have been taken into consideration and would have reduced his UC payments accordingly. The fact he has been paid late has just delayed the deduction so now he feels aggrieved

 

[Foxholer]

This is not correct. My wife works in benefits so can speak with some knowledge. If it is paid for a job, it is income not savings. If this was paid in the month prior to applying for UC then it would have been taken into consideration and would have reduced his UC payments accordingly. The fact he has been paid late has just delayed the deduction so now he feels aggrieved

Is the '(one) month prior to applying' important? Meaning had it been paid (for work) 2 months prior to UC, it would have been considered 'savings' (or at least not considered 'income'. That actually seems a reasonable 'stand-down' period. However, if it was paid late - for work carried out several months previously - as I believe is the case here - claimant has already had to, in effect, use previous income/savings to get by, so it shouldn't affect the UC payment!

Put another way....If the payment had not been delayed, there'd be no adjustment of UC. Does seem equitable/fair to me!

 

[Neilds]

Is the '(one) month prior to applying' important? Meaning had it been paid (for work) 2 months prior to UC, it would have been considered 'savings' (or at least not considered 'income'. That actually seems a reasonable 'stand-down' period. However, if it was paid late - for work carried out several months previously - as I believe is the case here - claimant has already had to, in effect, use previous income/savings to get by, so it shouldn't affect the UC payment!

Put another way....If the payment had not been delayed, there'd be no adjustment of UC. Does seem equitable/fair to me!

The month before is important, as that is what someone is expected to live off for the next month so (usually) little or no benefit will be paid for the first month.
Also, just to show how unfair the system is, my wife has seen claims from households who were previously on £10,000 per month who claimed they had no savings

 

[Foxholer]

The month before is important, as that is what someone is expected to live off for the next month so (usually) little or no benefit will be paid for the first month.
...

I figured that! The difference in SILH Jr's case is that the payment wasn't FOR that previous month (or even for the one before would be reasonable). It was a (much delayed) payment IN the previous month for work carried out several months previous. My assertion (of fairness) is that where it is a delayed payment - for work carried out more than 2 months previously (assuming payment for month 1 is made in month 2), it should NOT be treated as 'current' earnings which would reduce UC payment!

 

[Old Skier]

I figured that! The difference in SILH Jr's case is that the payment wasn't FOR that previous month (or even for the one before would be reasonable). It was a (much delayed) payment IN the previous month for work carried out several months previous. My assertion (of fairness) is that where it is a delayed payment - for work carried out more than 2 months previously (assuming payment for month 1 is made in month 2), it should NOT be treated as 'current' earnings which would reduce UC payment!

My understandings is that if he had updated his claim with his debt it could have been taken into account against his income.

 

[SaintHacker]

9 pages and still going, for the fourth time.
I'll tell you what i find unfair. I find it unfair that i pay income tax and some of that tax goes to give people who can work but refuse to money to live on.
Ive absolutely no problem supporting those who cannot work for whatever reason but why should those of us who work and contribute give our hard earned income to those who 'won't get out of bed for minimum wage', or think working in McDonalds is beneath them. Thats what i find unfair.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

9 pages and still going, for the fourth time.
I'll tell you what i find unfair. I find it unfair that i pay income tax and some of that tax goes to give people who can work but refuse to money to live on.
Ive absolutely no problem supporting those who cannot work for whatever reason but why should those of us who work and contribute give our hard earned income to those who 'won't get out of bed for minimum wage', or think working in McDonalds is beneath them. Thats what i find unfair.

Unfortunately the benefit system which should be to support you when in need has become the income to replace having to work. A generation of unemployed and benefits life is very hard to break down...and afford.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I alway thought benefits are there to help people who can't find work, not able-bodied young people who choose not to work.

I think in general, everyone has been very polite and reserved with their comments on this... ?

Probably because the skiving, oxygen thieves are a very, very, tiny minority compared to the genuine claimants.
Sadly that minority get the publicity and the majority are tar’d with the same brush.

 

[Neilds]

Probably because the skiving, oxygen thieves are a very, very, tiny minority compared to the genuine claimants.
Sadly that minority get the publicity and the majority are tar’d with the same brush.

The system is being abused so much it would scare you. Partly because of cuts to fraud investigators and partly because of claims being rushed through due to bad publicity fraud is very common. My wife regularly sees claims where both parents (separated) are claiming they look after the children and recently had a couple of claims where the landlords address was a street just round the corner from us. This street is not the type of place for people to have a 2nd property so a quick check showed the owner was different to the claim form so a fraud investigation was started. However, the fraud team for the County is 1 person!
You would also be surprised how many 18 year olds , when they no longer count on the claim and are expected to contribute to running the household, have arguments with their parents and move out - and the parent has no idea where they have moved to. The same excuses come out time and again

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The system is being abused so much it would scare you. Partly because of cuts to fraud investigators and partly because of claims being rushed through due to bad publicity fraud is very common. My wife regularly sees claims where both parents (separated) are claiming they look after the children and recently had a couple of claims where the landlords address was a street just round the corner from us. This street is not the type of place for people to have a 2nd property so a quick check showed the owner was different to the claim form so a fraud investigation was started. However, the fraud team for the County is 1 person!
You would also be surprised how many 18 year olds , when they no longer count on the claim and are expected to contribute to running the household, have arguments with their parents and move out - and the parent has no idea where they have moved to. The same excuses come out time and again

Not for one minute saying benefit fraud doesn’t go on, but no were near the scale people believe, the last “official” Government figures showed out of a total of £172Bn spent on benefits around £2Bn was lost to fraud and £1.4Bn was underpaid, a loss of around £600 mil to the treasury.
Still a disgusting amount and all those caught should be jailed, imo.

But let’s not pretend it’s only a minority on benefits committing fraud, there are some self-employed who “fiddle” expenses or the rich who fiddle their tax, both of which cost the tax payer a lot more. Tax evasion costs us on average £6Bn a year and tax avoidance (exploiting the loopholes) costs us £1.7Bn.

Maybe the resources to tackle all fraud need strengthening across the board and redirecting in some cases.

 

[Neilds]

Not for one minute saying benefit fraud doesn’t go on, but no were near the scale people believe, the last “official” Government figures showed out of a total of £172Bn spent on benefits around £2Bn was lost to fraud and £1.4Bn was underpaid, a loss of around £600 mil to the treasury.
Still a disgusting amount and all those caught should be jailed, imo.

But let’s not pretend it’s only a minority on benefits committing fraud, there are some self-employed who “fiddle” expenses or the rich who fiddle their tax, both of which cost the tax payer a lot more. Tax evasion costs us on average £6Bn a year and tax avoidance (exploiting the loopholes) costs us £1.7Bn.

Maybe the resources to tackle all fraud need strengthening across the board and redirecting in some cases.

The ‘funny’ thing about self employed when all this CV-19 kicked off was the amount of people contacting benefits to ask what the government were going to do about their lost earnings. They got a bit flustered when questioned about what earnings they were referring to as they had said they had little/no earnings so they could get a higher rate of benefits. Some people want it all ways!

 

[SaintHacker]

Yep. I know of quite a few local cab drivers who have been very upset to find out they were due next to no support as their previous tax returns have showed little to no profit for the year. No sympathy I'm afraid, never a truer saying than you reap what you sow...

 

[Hobbit]

9 pages and still going, for the fourth time.
I'll tell you what i find unfair. I find it unfair that i pay income tax and some of that tax goes to give people who can work but refuse to money to live on.
Ive absolutely no problem supporting those who cannot work for whatever reason but why should those of us who work and contribute give our hard earned income to those who 'won't get out of bed for minimum wage', or think working in McDonalds is beneath them. Thats what i find unfair.

I'd add those that choose a particular, low paid, career because it is their passion but then expect tax credits to supplement the low pay. Er, excuse me, you chose the low paid career, get off your ar5e and get a second job to supplement it. And I wonder who funds the tax credits? Those that pay tax fund it.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I'd add those that choose a particular, low paid, career because it is their passion but then expect tax credits to supplement the low pay. Er, excuse me, you chose the low paid career, get off your ar5e and get a second job to supplement it. And I wonder who funds the tax credits? Those that pay tax fund it.

Never been a fan of working tax credits. Encourages buisness to pay rubbish wages because the gov will top it up

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I alway thought benefits are there to help people who can't find work, not able-bodied young people who choose not to work.

I think in general, everyone has been very polite and reserved with their comments on this... ?

which is as it should be...given the many hundreds of thousands of workers who have had to register for UC in the last few months - 100% encouraged by the government - and who would not take kindly to being lumped in with those few who choose to be on, a stay on, UC.

 

[Foxholer]

...Tax evasion costs us on average £6Bn a year and tax avoidance (exploiting the loopholes) costs us £1.7Bn.

It's important to remember that while 'tax evasion' is illegal, tax avoidance is perfectly legal - and is, imo, obligatory! In fact, many/most of the (so-called) loopholes were quite deliberately created by the Government as a way of funding specifically targeted areas of the economy without directly funding them - the UK film industry being typical!

 

[Old Skier]

However, the fraud team for the County is 1 person!

Probably because the majority of the fraud teams have been hived off to deal with the current influx of claimants.