• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • New Regulations covering the LCWRA element of Universal Credit (members only)

News

New Regulations covering the LCWRA element of Universal Credit (members only)

Details

Benefits and Work has published a members only article covering new regulations, introduced last month, which clarify who will be accepted as a pre-6/4/26 claimant for the full LCWRA element to be included in their claim where they are still waiting for a work capability assessment (WCA). 

It also deals with the position of people claiming New-Style ESA based on their personal national insurance contributions, who may be eligible to claim UC to top up their income. 

Finally, it highlights a lack of clarity around claimants who are assessed as being in the support group for ESA and then claim UC to top-up their income.

This section of the article is only available for our subscribers. Please click here to subscribe to a subscription plan to view this part of the article.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 8 days ago
    @Davjd/Dave Yet further examples of how ill thought changes to welfare legislation would loose a grenade into the finely balanced set up of people's lives. One change and everything shifts.

    This is why we cannot predict or prepare, but, on the bright side, why I believe government will not have the wherewithal to inflict changes on existing claimants and why, when they begin to realise the extent of the complexities they will not be able to bring in major changes for a long time, because each time they try to alter something they will have to deal with a whole domino effect of fallout.

    I so hope your concerns are taken into account, but I fear it will all go over their heads. It's so unfair when you have done your best to be financially responsible you could lose out. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 7 days ago
      @keepingitreal non-means tested benefits,  I should have said.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 7 days ago
      @David It might not be possible. You have given another example of where there will be uproar and pushback. You need to get the insurance companies on board, because they could be vulnerable to policy holders' action (and certainly regarding getting new business), so they'd be against government changes to means tested benefits.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      David
      · 7 days ago
      @keepingitreal
      Very clearly, my income protection policy states that I can simultaneously claim Non means tested Incapacity benefit/NS-ESA along with my policy payments
      How is it possible that some predatory demon in a Fabian society funded think tank can decide that the government will simply draw a big line through the insurance companies terms and conditions, wiping out the value proposition of potentially millions of insurance contracts and there is no-one there to stop them? 

      HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!?!



  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    David
    · 8 days ago
    I sent this to the think Tank, Labour Together, this morning:

    Private and Confidential.

    To whom it may concern,

    Im writing to explain to you how your proposals in the pathways to work, green paper undermines payment protection policies.
    Millions of payment protection policies including, 'Income protection', and 'Accident Sickness Unemployment' policies have been sold over the last thirty years.
    At present I claim NS-ESA alongside a much reduced monthly payment of my income protection insurance policy.
    Income protection polices are designed to replace up to 50% of your salary based upon your final 12 months income, in the event that you can no longer work, due to illness, beginning after a deferred period of typically one year.
    I only get paid a small amount, due to decreased earnings, in my final 12 months working, (due to various factors including a dispute with a client, and a delayed diagnosis, after contracting a rare disease) so I am paid significantly less than the original amount my policy was based upon. I.E. the amount of premiums I paid every month into the policy over ten years, via DD whilst working.
    My Standard BUPA income protection policy is very specific about what state benefits I can and cannot claim along with my monthly insurance payments.
    The policy forbids me from claiming, certain types of income, such as income derived from investments, or offsets other types of income such as pensions etc, etc, however, my policy specifically names, Incapacity benefit, insisting that I can claim, Incapacity benefit, which I am entitled to due to claim having paid NI credits whilst working.
    Incapacity Benefit was replaced with NS-ESA. Both are non means tested benefits.
    This combination helps provide a more stable financial situation when facing serious illness and disability, especially if the policy payments are scaled down, as in my case, but combined with NS-ESA one can still receive meaningful support.
    This is a key design of a 'payment protection' insurance policy. My insurer marketed to me the benefits of being able to claim non means tested benefits along with my policy payments.
    This is written in the policies terms.
    (Presumably the policy was designed knowing that self employed people have fluctuating income)
    My policy explicitly allows, and heavily leans on the assumption that Incapacity Benefit/NS-ESA will be available, to be claimed, alongside my policy, until I am 65 years old.
    My policy fails to address what happens if my reliance on NS-ESA is discontinued, because a time limited payment is introduced, as proposed in consultation question 4 in the pathways to work green paper.
    This exposes a potential flaw in my insurance policy design, as it doesn’t account for changes in government benefit schemes, which is a forseeable risk and should have been taken into consideration by my insurer.
    These policies were designed so that claimants could stack payments with IB/NS-ESA and priced the product accordingly. Naming this, shows the insurer expected a permanent contributory IB/NS-ESA to exist for the life of the policy.
    Non means tested benefits based upon NI contributions, have been available in one form or another since 1911.

    Therefore the Green paper undermines the assumptions on which my policy (and presumably many millions of other policies) were sold.
    If I am forced to claim UC, because NS-ESA is cancelled, I will lose roughly half my income, as my UC payments would take into account my policy payments, and deduct the amount my policy pays me, accordingly.
    Can you provide me with evidence, as to where you have considered the interactions between PPP and NS-ESA in your deliberations?
    Regulatory impact assessments must consider private insurance interactions.
    Have you considered, prior to your publication of the green paper, the material risks?
    Financial detriment, Contractual reliance, Disproportionate impact on disabled people, Foreseeable harm, etc, etc?
    Has this been modelled? If not, is your think tank is responsible for this systemic oversight?
    E&OE..
    Without prejudice,

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave
    · 8 days ago
    Millions of payment protection policies including, 'Income protection', and'Accident Sickness Unemployment' policies policies have been sold over the last thirty years. 
    At present I claim NS-ESA alongside a much reduced monthly payment of my income protection insurance policy.
    Income protection polices are designed to replace up to 50% of your salary based upon your final 12 months income, in the event that you can no longer work, due to illness, beginning after a deferred period of typically one year. 
    I only get paid a small amount, due to decreased earnings, in my final 12 months working, so I am paid significantly less than the original amount my policy was based upon. I.E. the amount of premiums I paid every month into the policy via DD for over ten years whilst working.
    My Standard BUPA income protection policy is very specific about what state benefits I can and cannot claim along with my monthly insurance payments.

    The policy forbids me from claiming, certain types of income, such as income derived from investments, or offsets other types of income such as pensions etc, etc, however, my policy specifically names, Incapacity benefit, insisting that I can claim, Incapacity benefit, which I am entitled to due to claim having paid NI credits whilst working.
     
    Incapacity Benefit was replaced with NS-ESA. Both are non means tested benefits.
    This combination helps provide a more stable financial situation when facing serious illness and disability, especially if the policy payments are scaled down, as in my case, but combined with NS-ESA one can still receive meaningful support.
    This is a key design of a 'payment protection' insurance policy. My insurer marketed to me the benefits of being able to claim non means tested benefits along with my policy payments.
    (Presumably the policy was designed knowing that self employed people have fluctuating income)

    My policy explicitly allows, and heavily leans on the assumption that Incapacity Benefit/NS-ESA will be available, to be claimed, alongside my policy, until I am 65 years old.
    My policy fails to address what happens if my reliance on NS-ESA is discontinued, and a time limited payment is introduced, as proposed in consultation question 4 in the pathways to work green paper.

    This exposes a potential flaw in my insurance policy design, as it doesn’t account for changes in government benefit schemes, which is a forseeable risk and should have been taken into consideration by my insurer.

    Therefore the Green paper undermines the assumptions on which my policy (and presumably many millions of other policies) were sold?

    If I am forced to claim UC, because NS-ESA is cancelled, I will lose roughly half my income, as my UC payments would take into account my policy payments, and deduct accordingly, the amount my policy pays me. 

    Did the (Fabian Society funded) New Labour think tank 'Labour Together' take this into account? 
    As usual these ill considered government policies seem to have been introduced by Pseudo intellectual self serving predatory capitalists, AKA Neo-Liberals. 

    Surely any committee tasked to make decisions about the proposed cancellation of NS-ESA in 2028, and the negative effects on PPP holders, as in my instance, described above?

    When will this committee be formed, and meet to discuss these points? Id like to contact them and highlight this information. 

    Thankyou.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      David
      · 7 days ago
      @John You are describing a history of violence, s term used in sociology and public policyEconomic (removing essential income or resources) Psychological (fear, humiliation, intimidation) Structural (policies that create deprivation or insecurity)
      Social (isolation, exclusion, loss of autonomy)



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 8 days ago
      @Dave Some of the most heartless changes already made by previous governments are.

      Time limiting contributions based ESA LCW to 12 months. When LCW is for people assessed as effectively incapable of any and all forms of paid employment. Which is financially devastating if they have savings or other income or a working partner or spouse.

      For new claimants ending passporting to contributions based ESA LCWRA for people who have not made enough NI contributions but who were severely disabled from a young age so were never able to work or who are the most severely 80%+ disabled. Which is devastating as far as how it impacts what happens if they are left money by their parents, or if they get a working partner or spouse.

      Not honouring life-time benefit awards made to those severely disabled for life. For example Severe Disablement Allowance, and DLA lifetime awards. Awards that previously were viewed as guaranteed income by financial institutions, for example when getting a mortgage and buying a home.

      Abolishing benefits and premiums specifically for the most severely disabled to enable them to live independently. Abolishing the Independent Living Fund, and abolishing the Severe Disabling Premium. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 8 days ago
    @John "Who knows..." I wont argue with that!

    My central point is, whatever they decide, they wont achieve it, not least because there wii be scenarios they cannot imagine or predict and it's pointless our trying to before the findings and proposals are announced.

    Streamlining welfare is an impossible task - there are too many variables for welfare to be universal. Attempting or pretending universality is just a con. Universal credit has so many add ons and variables it's not universal at all, and nor will the changes be, as you recognise:

    "volunteers, the young, those with specific health conditions, those living in areas of high disability"

    "All a work in progress with full roll out nationally say by 3 years time, which then ends up running a bit late..." or, as I put it:

    "in no world are any large scale changes happening any time soon".

    Earlier you expressed confidence in Timms's statement concerning pensioners and pip reviews yet here you are saying:

    'The Timms review has not committed to protecting any group of claimants because the point of the Timms review is to give political cover"

    which is why Timms's pretence that pensioners will not be affected, based on a vague assertion about routine reviews, seals no deals.

    Seems we really are in agreement after all.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 8 days ago
      @John The "concessions they expect to make to rebellious MPs" could well be sparing your "pensioners, those already in the severe conditions criteria group and those with PIP ongoing/indefinite awards".

      They'd have to know the conclusion already - there's not time to actually devise and
      integrate changes. They're going to have trouble implementing anything, and will they survive the next election to try?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 8 days ago
      @Getting Sicker I do not share your optimism that there could be viable legal challenges that cause actual change to the government and media scapegoating and demonization of the disabled. Just small corrections of the record. Nor do I think legal challenges could stop the direction of travel on benefit changes. Just temporary delays.

      Parliament makes the laws in the UK. And the government is willing to break international conventions/laws it is signed up to. The UK government is in breach of the UN convention on rights of persons with disabilities, and the UN convention on reducing poverty. All while our PM goes on about adhering to international conventions/law.

      I also do not share your hope of charities being willing to challenge the government in the arena of public opinion and in the courts. I have sadly not had good experiences with charities and see them as primarily existing to make money to pay the people who work for them, rather than to help the people they ostensible exist to help. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 8 days ago
      @keepingitreal I still believe pensioners, those already in the severe conditions criteria group and those with PIP ongoing/indefinite awards will be protected. I just think the politicians want the changes to have the tag line coproduced with disabled people and their organizations and coproduced with independent impartial experts. Rather than the truth which is the changes are driven by political ideology, bigotry and the desire to scapegoat and impoverish disabled people rather than tax the rich and corporations.

      I think the government is just going through the motions of pretending it is researching and consulting and brainstorming new ideas. When in reality the government pretty much knows the conclusion already. From what will be proposed by the Timms Review, to what concessions they expect to make to rebellious MPs.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 8 days ago
      @keepingitreal It’s clear that there are a lot of super bright people in the space of health and mental health battling away to do the job that the government Dwp department should’ve done in terms of communications. Communications that have antguably been paid for by the taxpayer to take place for the endless changes made to those on health benefits whilst being used as a political football. Sometimes I wish some of that intelligence would go towards considering whether there’s any room for legal action. In my honest  opinion, I cannot think that there isn’t some legal point around arguable incitement towards hatred, even violence, of those on health benefits. I’m also increasingly concerned by the amount of communications being delivered by broadcasters that include the Bbc where items are not balanced up and the conflating of work with good health is constantly pushed— and is affecting the environment in which the disabled are expected to live.  I asked An Acquaintance, who is normally extremely sensible, how much they thought PIP was fraud was and  they replied approximately 80%. The reality, the facts, according to the government’s own investigations is under 1%. So the communications around the facts are not cutting through to the . It’s been disappointing to see how many charities commenting in this space of health benefit cuts do not seem to have arguably coordinated themselves enough in terms of communications and  PR to cut through the noise so that the public know the facts. That’s not just disappointing, it’s going to affect lives. Very lucky for the current government and future governments and extremely unlucky for us. There needs to be coordination IMHO in terms of potential multi litigation legal cases and/or coordinated PR.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 9 days ago
    My post was cut. I'll try again.

    I do not for one minute believe the Timms review is genuinely about getting people into work. We all know what Timms has repeatedly said, but he has not committed to protecting any group of claimants. Anything is up for grabs in the review.

    However, if eligibility for lcwra is linked to pip, and pip qualifying criteria are tightened, then thousands of 'jobseekers' - in name only - will be created by, and therefore need to have their claims processed and managed by dwp. The many hypothetical scenarios and permutations such as those illustrated by @John will be inoperable and/or proposals will be challenged by constituents via their mps.

    The Canary article expresses doubt I share as to the the dwp's capacity to enact changes:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/03/10/dwp-timms-lost/&ved=2ahUKEwj6i76XoZ-TAxULY0EAHWkbGKwQFnoECF0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2m_9xmrvB1g1GczCoi415g
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 9 days ago
      @keepingitreal The Timms review has not committed to protecting any group of claimants because the point of the Timms review is to give political cover. They want to say these are the groups the Timms review coproduced with disabled people and their organizations and coproduced with independent impartial experts have decided to protect. And then to get it through parliament give concessions to rebellious MPs. And end up where they wanted to end up in the first place.

      As for those who lose LCWRA status having to sign on every two weeks and a Work Coach checking they have done any required tasks. The government is planning on reducing the time Work Coaches spend with the able unemployed doing that. So the DWP can in theory focus resources on the young and those with health barriers to employability. Who knows for everyone including those with health conditions who are supposed to sign on we could see sign on via online and a lot of DWP work coach discretion as to what if anything people have to do. If they do not have the resources it is going to have to be very light touch or very targeted at groups not everyone.

      While those the Canary article raises who are short-term blatantly incapable of working and of doing activities towards working. There will be the new time limited insurance based unemployment benefit that pays the same amount as UC with LCWRA does currently. And for conditionality they could be treated the same way the DWP currently does those who are hospital inpatients. That is no tasks required.

      I like you see it as primarily about saving money. They do not have to apply the conditionality and sanctions regime to everyone who loses LCWRA status to save money. They can simply do pilot schemes and target groups be that volunteers, the young, those with specific health conditions, those living in areas of high disability. And claim that they will rollout the most successful pilot schemes nationally. Or that help towards and into work will be rolled out nationality once they restructure the system, by moving responsibility to partnership between local and national government, or between the DWP and NHS, or to employer led schemes run in partnership with the DWP and NHS. All a work in progress with full roll out nationally say by 3 years time, which then ends up running a bit late...

      Practicality, competence and being completed on time, are not words I associate with welfare policy or government policies in general. Take UC it passed parliament in 2012 with rollout to start in 2013 and be fully completed by 2016. It is now 2026 and it is still not fully rolled out.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 10 days ago
    @John

    "Pensioners on PIP almost all have ongoing/indefinite PIP awards. So I expect would not be effected by changes to the PIP assessment system. As they are not routinely reassessed just light touch reviewed every 10 years which is not a reassessment"

    Oh yes, that's what that nice Mr Timms said, remember? -

    “In keeping with existing policy, people over State Pension Age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by the proposed changes.”

    Those light touch reviews, though, do ask whether anything has changed, so there can be a reassessment, and we don't know yet whether new rules would come into play, just as there are no guarantees for any other existing claimants.

    See B&W

    https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/timms-review-will-cover-current-pip-claimants,-dwp-confirms

    https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/proved-timms-repeatedly-misled-parliament-over-pension-age-pip

    It is highly likely that, as you put it, "the cuts are more about saving money than getting people into work"

    but in order to administer those cuts the dwp would still have to process and manage all the claimants they would have re-labelled "jobseekers", as well as deal with the fallout from the complexities of pension age claimants losing pip under the new rules if those rules were applied, which I believe is too great a task for dwp, and why we cannot give credence to predictions of disaster under new rules which have not in any case yet been defined.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 10 days ago
      @keepingitreal The 30 October 2025 Benefits and Work new story you linked to is about existing claimants who have reassessments. Not people with ongoing/indefinite awards who are not routinely reassessed, just light touched reviewed which is not a reassessment.

      I would be amazed if Timms position that from the start has been pensioners will not be affected by changes to the PIP assessment system, changes in the Timms PIP review to they will affect pensioners.

      In my view the 09 June 2025 Benefits and Work news story you linked to is mistaken in it's interpretation.

      Timms has repeatedly said from the beginning that pensioners would not be affected. As they are on ongoing/indefinite awards so not routinely reassessed. A light touch review is not a reassessment.

      And when he has been asked about if they report a change in health. He has repeatedly said he is looking at how to protect them in that situation.

      The 09 June 2025 Benefits and Work news story reports this as "DWP disability minister Stephen Timms repeatedly misled parliament by untruthfully claiming that personal independence payment (PIP) claimants over state pension age will not be affected by the proposed changes”... "Timms has finally admitted that the DWP currently have no idea how to avoid the proposed 4-point rule affecting pension age PIP reviews."

      In my opinion Benefits and Work news coverage of this issue was mistaken from the start to the end.
      25 April 2025 Good news for pension age PIP, but questions still remain
      17 May 2025 Timms desperately tries to hide the truth about pension age PIP
      09 June 2025 Proved: Timms repeatedly misled parliament over pension age PIP
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 11 days ago
    During last year's 4 point rule furore what I came back to time and again was thinking it could never happen because it simply wasn't workable with all the permutations of who would lose what. I feel the same about extreme predictions regarding pip, the wca and lcwra. Even with the most fanciful dystopian outlook it's impossible to see how dwp could cope with millions more 'jobseekers'.

    In the end I think all Timms will be able to achieve is some face saving reconfiguration of criteria with maybe some reductions in awards to new claimants. It's all just too complicated, as John's setting out of some possible case scenarios has demonstrated, and that doesn't even include post pension age pip claimants who could lose pip, the severe disability allowance and therefore pension credit and consequently at least some housing benefit as a result of pip criteria being tightened.

    In addition to politicians not being able to get their heads around how to implement changes, there will be a massive labour rebellion if proposed cuts are extreme, just as there was last year. The Timms review itself is barely off the ground, and Labour has its election campaigns to attend to, so in no world are any large scale changes happening any time soon.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 10 days ago
      @John I agree with John. That’s my exact take on it as well. It’s not about getting the disabled into work. It’s about saving money & something else… And once that’s understood, everything else falls into place and makes sense. I think it’s even about more than saving money because actually there’s not a lot of money that can be raised by removing it off the disabled (only by taxing the super rich) so there’s another agenda working here as well… IMHO all this spin about getting the disabled into work is a piece of false altruism. They know by their own research &  efforts that they can make no significant improvements in that area, and unemployment is going up for the abled bodied. Any changes they’re making in that area will be simple superficial tokenistic changes in my honest opinion to act as PR spin for what in my honest opinion is hiding in the direction of democide. Or has arguably already reached it. Those up and coming “criteria changes” that seem so small actually represent vulnerable people falling out of the system and not getting the benefits they need to survive. A shocking indictment on what’s supposed to be a civilised society. Sometimes I wonder if we’re not any more civil lies than some of the worst societies. It’s just that we put a fig leaf on it to disguise it and dress it up as enablement. And that kind of makes it worse….
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 10 days ago
      @keepingitreal
      I think the cuts are more about saving money than getting people into work. As far as helping people into work the plan looks to be to focus on those who ask for help into work, new claimants, and the young. Older existing claimants might remain "abandoned" to a life on benefits just with a bit more hassle from the jobcentre and a lot less money.

      Pensioners on PIP almost all have ongoing/indefinite PIP awards. So I expect would not be effected by changes to the PIP assessment system. As they are not routinely reassessed just light touch reviewed every 10 years which is not a reassessment. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    FluffyViking
    · 13 days ago
    What I don't understand from these changes is that although I'm already in the UC LCWRA 'group' and get qualify for the full health element, what happens when my health is due to be reassessed if the WCA is scrapped?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 10 days ago
      @J B Sal No one knows for sure what the rules will be. It is a summary of what I expect will happen, based on what the government has said about it's planned changes and how previous benefit changes have been handled by previous governments.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      J B Sal
      · 12 days ago
      @John Is this a summary of the rules? Thanks John!
      All very confusing with so many ifs, isn't it?
      WHat criteria are specified as to whether  PIP is awarded or not - are they transparent or 'it's all person by person'?

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Wibblum
      · 12 days ago
      @rookie John is all seeing.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 12 days ago
      @John @John How do you know all this?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 12 days ago
      @John & now so complex, for the disabled and their health benefit benefits , that even CAS are starting to get confused or at least in my experience and we all have to come on here to try and find out what’s really happening via John. What could possibly go wrong? I do believe that the taxpayer would like to see money put into communications in this area so that no more disabled people will blindly into dreadful situations. We deserve better. Society deserves better.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Rebecca Mcintosh
    · 14 days ago
    My husband and I got transitioned from ESA and income support last summer. I have cerebral palsy, and my husband has had severe epilepsy since childhood and has never worked, but he is having to have regular meetings with a Job coach, and we don't understand why.     At his first face-to-face meeting, he had a seizure because of the stress; now they have all been online since.   It should have been an easy transition because my husband gets the full care component.
    Can anyone advise us, please?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 13 days ago
      @Rebecca Mcintosh His PIP care component is irrelevant. His UC award is what matters. Check on the UC benefit award what group he is in. LCWRA (Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity) has no conditionality and should not be being asked to regularly attend Job Centre work coach meetings. LCW (Limited Capability for Work) has some conditionality and maybe asked to do appropriate activities towards working including attending Job Centre work coach meetings. Just the standard allowance/unemployed has full conditionality so have to attend regular Job Centre work coach meetings and take steps toward work or look for work. Carer if also in receipt of carer's allowance are not available to work and have no conditionality so should not be being asked to regularly attend Job Centre work coach meetings.

      If he was previously on ESA support group he should have been passported to UC LCWRA. If he was previously on ESA work related activity group he should have been passported to UC LCW. If he was on income support and carers allowance he should have been passported to UC carer. If he was on income support and not on carer's allowance he may have been passported to UC unemployed. If he has been passported to the wrong UC group tell the DWP. 

      If he is in a group they are not supposed to asking to attending regular Job Centre Work Coach meetings. Tell the Job Centre. They may have just got muddled up due to the joint claim and made an assumption as to his award group/conditionality without checking.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Wibblum
      · 14 days ago
      @Rebecca Mcintosh It sounds like the Job Centre are trying it on and playing a game,as your husband should have been placed in the no work category.Maybe he could refuse to go to the next meeting.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Getting Sicker
    · 14 days ago
    Amended: Repeat warning: anyone on universal credit who owns a flat, and has their service charge paid by universal credit, if you earn even £1, you lose your service charge payments from UC. Arguably discriminatory. And for anyone who feels no sympathy for that, please remember it actually costs the taxpayer less to keep us in our own homes than re-house us in social or local authority housing. It also stops a further fallout to leaning on the Nhs for more support - all costing the taxpayer more. I don’t know how they got it through in 2013 and how it’s gone unchallenged legally including in the EHRC. Presumably nobody cares or nobody noticed…
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    June McC
    · 14 days ago
    My son is 18 and we started a contribution only lwcra claim in November awaiting an assesment. 
    We must make a separate uc claim on 31 August for him as he’ll be 19. He is currently on my award. 
    If we wait until August and he is awarded lwcra, will it be at the pre April rate or not, assuming he qualifies. Or do we need to apply for UC for him before 6/4/26 Pleae? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Getting Sicker
    · 14 days ago
    Repeat warning: anyone on universal credit who owns a flat, and has their service charge paid by universal credit, if you were an even £1, you lose your service charge payments. Arguably discriminatory. And for anyone who feels no sympathy for that, please remember it actually cost the taxpayer less to keep us in our own homes than we houses in social or local authority housing. It also stops a further fallout to leaning on the Nhs for more support - all costing the taxpayer more. I don’t know how they got through in 2013 and how it’s gone unchallenged legally including in the EHRC. Presumably nobody cares or  nobody noticed…
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Elizabeth
    · 14 days ago
    I migrated over to universal credit ln January I got my first payment  but I was awarded LCWRA without an assessment can this happen does anyone know please 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 14 days ago
      @Elizabeth It can and it’s supposed to happen like that
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Elizabeth Vidler
    · 17 days ago
    I don't understand this at all I have been on CB ESA since 2011, and haven't had an assessment since about 2018, I cannot get U/C as I have savings, but I still have the health condition, this whole thing is an utter mess, I only get high rate mobility on PIP, so do not know where I stand and what is going on and when.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Dmwors
      · 14 days ago
      @Elizabeth Vidler Cb ESA is renamed New style ESA. (Basically the same as cb esa) continue to be paid fortnightly and continue to report changes by phone.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Getting Sicker
    · 18 days ago
    So, is ESA-CB/NS-ESA become insurance in 2028? What does that actually mean for those in ESA-CB LWCRA who don't have any savings or any income coming in. And never really did. Just an odd £50 here and there, declared, that landed them in the ESA-CB group? So, if they don't have enough contributions, they end up with nothing come 2028? Some of us are split across ESA-CB/NS-ESA, and UC LCWRA and we don't know what is going on. We cannot even sort out who is paying our service charges on our flats. It's an absolute mess. CAS is confused. My MP is confused. How is this even legal under human rights law?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fibrogal
      · 14 days ago
      @Getting Sicker Service charges for flat will be paid as part of your Housing element on should be listed as such on your UC statement 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 16 days ago
      @John Thanks John! Will be following your suggestions! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 16 days ago
      @Getting Sicker The DWP Income based ESA housing support department that handles SMI and service charges has either screwed up the transfer to the DWP UC housing support department that handles SMI and service charges. Or the people at UC general enquires are wrong when they are telling you UC is only paying your SMI and not your service charges. I would try to get the UC general enquires to put you through to talk to someone in the UC housing costs and mortgage interest department that handles SMI as it should also handle service charges, or see if they can get that department to call you back. So you can talk to someone at the DWP who hopefully knows what they should be doing and can check what they are actually doing. Even at the UC housing support and mortgage interest department you may need to point out to them they should be paying SMI and the service charges not just the SMI and may have to get them to check with someone else if they say UC only pays SMI not service charges for home owners. In my limited experience staff training and staff competence is not one of the DWP's strong points.

      Contributions based New Style ESA does not pay SMI or service charges and the Income based ESA department that does is probably short staffed and snowed under doing SMI transfers to UC. And you are no longer on income based ESA. So if they are paying it they should not be.    
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Dannan
      · 16 days ago
      @Getting Sicker UC pays the service charges for owned flats. nsESA is a flat rate for limited capability for work/work related activity, and covers no part of housing. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 16 days ago
      @John Thank you, John. That’s genuinely  helpful. 
      Just a heads up for everyone out there who owns a flat (with a huge mortgage I’m sure) that  you will indeed be worse off if you earn even £1 because UC stop paying the service charge for people who own their flats and earn even £1, even doing lived experience mental health involvement. That was not the case on ESA. Nor is it clear what happensif ESA remain paying the service charge if that rule applies for those of those us who are split across ESA and UC. It’s an absolute mess. The sooner this government accepts that those on ESACB should not be further migrated over for those of us will split across the two, the better. I would argue it’s got to the stage where it’s discriminatory against those who actually own their flats. And whilst it might be easy not to sympathise with us actually we didn’t plan on getting ill and it cost the tax pay less to keep us in them. On top of all this mess,some of us are even unclear why ESCB is paying our service charges still & not now UC.,Can anyone answer that question because CAS keep
      Insisting ESA do not pay service charges for owned flats and then in fact it should’ve been migrated over to UC. ESA do not answer correspondence at least for me and so the confusion continues.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Neil
    · 19 days ago
    I was transferred from ESA support straight to UC Lcwra about 5 years ago with no reassessment in between at all.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Neil
    · 19 days ago
    Sue you ruddy angel thank you
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Copycat
      · 17 days ago
      @Neil Neil your a Ruddy good man.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Neil
    · 19 days ago
    I hope I'm not going to be hit by whatever id in this new info.....I haven't had an assessment for years prior to COVID happening so I don't know what's in this new info as I can't afford the membership cost right now.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil
      · 19 days ago
      @Neil If anything needed doing would the dwp notify you if the need to contact them etc? Because if so I've had no such communication from them about any if this in any way shape or form. I hope this means I'm ok as I am and I'll be left alone because I'm so scared tight now.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Sue
      · 19 days ago
      @Neil It doesn't affect existing claimants like you at all.  It's about people transferring to UC or people who have made a UC claim but not yet had a WCA.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil
      · 19 days ago
      @Neil Anyone have any ideas please?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Getting Sicker
    · 20 days ago
    There's other huge problem "grey areas" too, to do with service charges on owned flats (well with huge mortgages in reality). Those of us on ESA-CB, and now migrated over for top up of UC, are having huge issues with service charges on our owned flats. Neither UC nor ESA seem to know who is paying it. CAS say UC. UC say no. ESA do not respond. 
    In my case, I seem to be receiving the total amount, when ESA-CB and UC, is added together that I was expecting after the migration. 
    But in the meantime, my service charge on my flat was reduced by the managing agent. It was horrendous before.  No worries, I thought, I always do what's right so I set about notifying the DWP of this reduction.  I notified the UC, via the UC Journal and they said, "we don't pay it. We just help you out with the SMI loan interest bits". I was surprised.  I'd done all the bits, with help, correctly for the migration when I got the migration letter. So, I decided to contact the ESA Dept instead. Finding out I was ESA-CB (so New Style ESA I presume). I sent lots of registered Royal Mail letters to the ESA telling them my service charge had been reduced. They have never responded - not in over 4 months. What the hell is going on? Can anyone help unpick this, please? CAS seem confused. My MP is confused. Any help would be appreciated. It's an omnishambles. No one sick should ever have been migrated over to UC. 

    Also beware - HEADS UP: anyone who owns a flat, and pays the service charge on it, if they earn a £1, gets their service charge stopped. It's unclear for how long (temp, a month, forever) and no one seems to have the answer to that either. I also think it's discriminatory. It's hidden in the UC 2013 regs. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 18 days ago
      @Getting Sicker If it was me I would try to talk to someone more senior in the UC department or see if they have a housing costs and mortgage interest department you can talk to which I thinks handles service charges. As UC should be paying UC housing element to cover your service charges (if you meet the eligibility criteria I detailed).

      As to why your UC is the total amount and not short. I can think of three possible answers.

      Most likely I think is the possibility that the person you previously talked to at UC was wrong when they said UC is not paying towards service charges and you are just getting SMI, and UC is actually paying it. I think that the UC housing costs and mortgage interest department that pays SMI also handles housing element for service charges.

      Or possibly the amount you were eligible for under UC was less than the amount you previous got under income based ESA and they are paying UC transitional protection to top it up to the old amount.

      Or possibly if you were not on severe disability premium when you transferred and are now on UC LCWR your UC maybe more money than you previously got. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Getting Sicker
      · 19 days ago
      @John Thanks John. So it sounds as if what’s  actually happened is the migration has gone wrong. What I can’t work out is why I’m receiving the total amount, when the two benefits put together, that come to what I had expected. Who is responsible for messing up that migration? Does the wait fall to me me to make sure they put it right? Or when they dissolve ESA-CB, will it automatically move over to UC?  Or do I need to activate something urgently manually now myself to get it moved over? I’m really disgusted & really distressed about it. The migration should’ve been automatic anyway and this sort of thing shows you exactly why. As a sick person, we can’t be acting as a coordinator for a forced UC migration. Of course unless that’s the point that we just want to pop ourselves by the time we finish with all this Rubbish. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 19 days ago
      @Getting Sicker According to Shelters website.

      Contributions based New Style ESA will not pay the service charges

      Universal Credit should be doing so via a housing element if you qualify.

      The qualifying criteria for owner occupiers is:

      An owner-occupier cannot be paid the housing costs element for eligible service charges for an assessment period:
      where the claimant or their partner has any earned income which is part of a 'qualifying period'

      A qualifying period is a period of nine consecutive assessment periods (each assessment period is 1 month) during which the claimant is all of the following:
      an owner-occupier
      claiming universal credit
      not in receipt of earned income

      When any of these conditions do not apply, the qualifying period stops running and must start again before service charges can be included.

      Where a claimant was claiming jobseeker's allowance or employment and support allowance immediately before they claimed universal credit, time spent on these benefits counts towards the qualifying period

      Service charges must:
      be payable as a condition of occupying the home
      be of a reasonable amount and relate to services or facilities which are reasonable to provide

      Service charges must fall within a specified category:
      external cleaning of windows on the upper floors in a multi-storey building
      internal or external repair of shared ownership or owner-occupied property
      payments for the general upkeep of communal areas, for example, cleaning and utilities payments
      payments for basic communal services, for example refuse collection, lift maintenance and access to the building
      payments for essential items provided with the accommodation, such as furniture or domestic appliances

Free, Fortnightly PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

News, Coupons, Campaigns, Feedback.

Over 140,000 claimant and professional subscribers.

 
iContact

Latest news

We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.

Ok Decline
More about cookies