- Posts: 51053
× Members
CB 365 day for life?
- RachelPotter
12 years 5 months ago #73768 by RachelPotter
Replied by RachelPotter on topic Re:CB 365 day for life?
Thankyou Gordon! 
I have copied and pasted bits of the transcript, to study when I am less tired.
Best wishes,
Rachel
I have copied and pasted bits of the transcript, to study when I am less tired.
Best wishes,
Rachel
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
12 years 5 months ago #73773 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Re:CB 365 day for life?
The following is a list of the amendments to Clause 51 and their current status
71M
Page 36, line 19, leave out “365 days” and insert “a prescribed number of days which must be at least 730”
Withdrawn
71N*
Page 36, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may make provision for certain groups to be exempt from the 365 days time limiting of contributory allowance.”
Not Moved
71P*
Page 36, line 30, at end insert—
“(c) a person having limited capability for work related activity shall be treated as having satisfied the first and second conditions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1, provided that person would have continued to be entitled to the contributory allowance except for its cessation as a result of subsection (1).”
Not Moved
72
Page 36, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert—
“(3) In calculating for the purposes of subsection (1) the length of the period for which a person is entitled to a contributory allowance, the following are not to be counted—
(a) days in which the person is a member of the support group,
(b) days not falling within paragraph (a) in respect of which the person is entitled to the support component referred to in section 2(1)(b), and
(c) days in the assessment phase, where the days immediately following that phase fall within paragraph (a) or (b).
(4) In calculating for the purposes of subsection (1) the length of the period for which a person is entitled to a contributory allowance, days occurring before the coming into force of this section are to be counted (as well as those occurring afterwards).”
Agreed
72A
As an amendment to Amendment 72
Leave out lines 11 to 14
Not Moved
73
Page 36, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
“(a) does not include any days occurring before the coming into force of this section”
Not Moved
74
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) does not include any days during the 13-week assessment phase”
Not Moved
75
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) The period of days referred to in subsection (1) shall restart following any period in which a person is a member of the support group.”
Not Moved
75A
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) In Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007, in paragraph 6 insert—
“(2A) Regulations for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) must provide a minimum gross weekly amount of income that the other member of the couple may receive before their income may be treated as income of the claimant.
(2B) The minimum gross weekly amount of income prescribed in sub-paragraph (2A) may not be set below the personal allowance for income tax divided by 52.””
Not Moved
71M
Page 36, line 19, leave out “365 days” and insert “a prescribed number of days which must be at least 730”
Withdrawn
71N*
Page 36, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may make provision for certain groups to be exempt from the 365 days time limiting of contributory allowance.”
Not Moved
71P*
Page 36, line 30, at end insert—
“(c) a person having limited capability for work related activity shall be treated as having satisfied the first and second conditions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1, provided that person would have continued to be entitled to the contributory allowance except for its cessation as a result of subsection (1).”
Not Moved
72
Page 36, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert—
“(3) In calculating for the purposes of subsection (1) the length of the period for which a person is entitled to a contributory allowance, the following are not to be counted—
(a) days in which the person is a member of the support group,
(b) days not falling within paragraph (a) in respect of which the person is entitled to the support component referred to in section 2(1)(b), and
(c) days in the assessment phase, where the days immediately following that phase fall within paragraph (a) or (b).
(4) In calculating for the purposes of subsection (1) the length of the period for which a person is entitled to a contributory allowance, days occurring before the coming into force of this section are to be counted (as well as those occurring afterwards).”
Agreed
72A
As an amendment to Amendment 72
Leave out lines 11 to 14
Not Moved
73
Page 36, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
“(a) does not include any days occurring before the coming into force of this section”
Not Moved
74
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) does not include any days during the 13-week assessment phase”
Not Moved
75
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) The period of days referred to in subsection (1) shall restart following any period in which a person is a member of the support group.”
Not Moved
75A
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) In Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007, in paragraph 6 insert—
“(2A) Regulations for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) must provide a minimum gross weekly amount of income that the other member of the couple may receive before their income may be treated as income of the claimant.
(2B) The minimum gross weekly amount of income prescribed in sub-paragraph (2A) may not be set below the personal allowance for income tax divided by 52.””
Not Moved
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- carruthers
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 311
12 years 5 months ago #74201 by carruthers
Replied by carruthers on topic Re:CB 365 day for life?
Here's a thought experiment. The person is entirely fictional, so this is not a real world scenario - but could become one.
Jane, 40, was diagnosed with MS 5 years ago. For the last 4 years she was able to keep working, but now the disease is catching up with her, and she has had to give up work.
Jane looks at the ESA rules, and reckons that - despite her obvious problems - she is not going to get into the support group just now. She also takes a look at the 365-day rule. She sees that, at the moment, her savings will preclude ESA(IR).
If she applies now, and gets in the WRAG, she could easily find that her condition doesn't change for a year. She reckons that, more likely than not, she will not be able to get into the SG before the year's end.
However, she knows that at some point, quite possibly in the next 2-3 years, MS being progressive, her condition will have deteriorated just that little bit further, until she probably would qualify for SG.
If she has taken ESA in the WRAG for 365 days, then she is not going to get ESA (SG) 2 years later, or at all - unless the rules change.
So, Jane thinks that perhaps she would be better off not claiming ESA at all until she thinks she has a good chance of getting into the SG, where she can stay indefinitely. This will make matters very difficult now, but may make them easier in the long term.
I would like to think that this is an unintended consequence of the 365-day rule.
Jane, 40, was diagnosed with MS 5 years ago. For the last 4 years she was able to keep working, but now the disease is catching up with her, and she has had to give up work.
Jane looks at the ESA rules, and reckons that - despite her obvious problems - she is not going to get into the support group just now. She also takes a look at the 365-day rule. She sees that, at the moment, her savings will preclude ESA(IR).
If she applies now, and gets in the WRAG, she could easily find that her condition doesn't change for a year. She reckons that, more likely than not, she will not be able to get into the SG before the year's end.
However, she knows that at some point, quite possibly in the next 2-3 years, MS being progressive, her condition will have deteriorated just that little bit further, until she probably would qualify for SG.
If she has taken ESA in the WRAG for 365 days, then she is not going to get ESA (SG) 2 years later, or at all - unless the rules change.
So, Jane thinks that perhaps she would be better off not claiming ESA at all until she thinks she has a good chance of getting into the SG, where she can stay indefinitely. This will make matters very difficult now, but may make them easier in the long term.
I would like to think that this is an unintended consequence of the 365-day rule.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- DRAGON2009
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 654
12 years 5 months ago #74205 by DRAGON2009
Replied by DRAGON2009 on topic Re:CB 365 day for life?
That is a good point and also another scenario is that MPs will be whinging about how much the Support Group is costing after a few years X number of tens of millions, on people who have adequate and substantial savings or working parners with substantial saleries . Can this be right, they may ask.
The trend is to bit by bit make sickness benefits harder to claim, and so in time its possihble to see further obstacles, including as regards the Support Group. I for one do not see the Support Group as if it were green belt land
The trend is to bit by bit make sickness benefits harder to claim, and so in time its possihble to see further obstacles, including as regards the Support Group. I for one do not see the Support Group as if it were green belt land
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- carruthers
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 311
12 years 5 months ago #74275 by carruthers
Replied by carruthers on topic Re:CB 365 day for life?
XFACTOR wrote:
Given current government planning policy, green belt land isn't green belt any more!The trend is to bit by bit make sickness benefits harder to claim, and so in time its possible to see further obstacles, including as regards the Support Group. I for one do not see the Support Group as if it were green belt land
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris