One way to resolve the problems of means testing – just make the details up

I’m definitely slowing down; it’s the nearly the end of May and I’ve still got seven hundred pages to work through of the CPAG handbook.

I’ve been struck this time by something I really ought to have noticed before now, which is the system’s gradual, creeping dependence on imaginary money: ‘notional’ income,  earnings or capital, ‘deemed’ income, treating loans as income, attributing to people the benefits they haven’t claimed, ‘underlying’ entitlements, treating payments that are owed to a claimant as if they had actually been paid, and so on. For those of you who habitually don’t spend their time curled up with the Handbook, here are a few examples:

If your main work is self-employment but your earnings are low, your UC may be worked out on higher earnings than you have.  (p 119)

You may be treated as having notional income if … you work free of charge or for less than the going rate ( p 129)

If you fail to apply for income to which you are entitled without have to fulfil further conditions, you are treated as having it from the date you could have obtained it. (p 451)

Capital (unless it is disregarded) is assumed to provide a set rate of income – called ‘deemed income’ (p 477)

You may be treated as having notional capital if:

  • you deliberately deprive yourself of capital in order to claim or increase benefit
  • you fail to apply for capital which is available to you
  • you are a sole trader or a partner in a business which is a limited company (p 501)

You are treated as having ‘notional earnings’ if it is not possible to work out your actual earnings from employment or self-employment when your claim is decided (p 564)

Student loans for maintenance count as income if you could get a loan by taking ‘reasonable steps’, even if you choose not to apply for one.  (p 871)

The basic principle is that if people’s income is too complicated, too unstable or too uncertain to declare, the process of means-testing is going to plough on regardless.  They may not actually have any income, but we can still pretend that they have one. It’s a wonder that we’ve not thought more about make-believe food.  It’s the obvious answer to foodbanks.

2 comments

  1. Ian Davidson

    Yes, a growing trend. The capital limits have not kept pace with inflation and assume an unrealistic return on any savings. Also fails to take account of societal changes. Eg if you are a home owner, then it is essential to have sufficient reserves to deal with any unexpected major repairs etc that are not covered by insurance. The cost of a funeral is about £5k. Replacing a car essential for family needs, getting to work etc. The Pension Credit capital rules are more generous than working age benefits but confusing re: Housing Benefit etc. The capital rules for residential care etc are more confusing and no independent appeals process. Just as you can’t live off the value of your house, you cannot live off notional income. Thankfully I won’t be ploughing through the CPAG Handbook this year nor the simpler Disability Rights Handbook. The Scottish benefits and interaction with UK benefits will inevitably create more complexity and larger handbooks! For those living on the edge, life will continue to be about survival.

Leave a Reply