Keir Starmer aka Captain Flip Flop

Casdon

You don’t have to receive universal credit to get child allowance for your first two children though GrannyGravy, it’s a separate benefit, sliding scale based on income?

I know that?

GrannyGravy13

Casdon

You don’t have to receive universal credit to get child allowance for your first two children though GrannyGravy, it’s a separate benefit, sliding scale based on income?

I know that?

You do not need to be on Universal Credit to get child/family allowance for the first two children or for any subsequent children.

The cap is that Universal Credit does not give any extra money for above two children. This is totally different from child/family allowance.

In recent months I’ve over used the nhs. I had a colonoscopy. Then fall that resulted in a fracture. Just recovering from that when serious abdominal surgery was needed. I’m a permanent rheumatology patient and take meds they preecribe, as well as various meds for atrial fib.
My treatment was excellent as was the level of care at my local hospital. I was given verbal feedback on the colonoscopy immediately, some issues but no cancer.
The fracture had me triaged in 10 mins to the quieter minor injuries unit. I was seen within the hour, sent off to radiology where 4 X-rays were done. Seen back in the clinic and the arm/shoulder put in a sling. Then to physio where I was assessed and given exercise.
2 weeks later reviewed, further X-ray confirmed no surgery needed. Back to the hospital physio. Exercise sheet and referral to physio close to home. 4 months treatment - excellent
The only concern was poor support/advice from the private hospital where my abdo surgery was done under the NHS. They put the wrong operation on my discharge letter and gave me incorrect advice on pain relief. I phoned and all was resolved by a good senior nurse
My rheumatology nurse phoned to see how I was and discuss me restarting the treatment which I’d had to stop because of the risk of infection with surgery (the meds lower my immune system)
I’m not disputing the awful mess our nhs is in. But praise where deserved

GrannyGravy13

GrannyGravy13

Casdon

You don’t have to receive universal credit to get child allowance for your first two children though GrannyGravy, it’s a separate benefit, sliding scale based on income?

I know that?

You do not need to be on Universal Credit to get child/family allowance for the first two children or for any subsequent children.

The cap is that Universal Credit does not give any extra money for above two children. This is totally different from child/family allowance.

I see what you mean, you’re right if course, but the point I was making was that people lost money when they had more than two children, whether they were working or not. It wasn’t means tested previously. People also lost money when the system changed to universal credit - so there were two separate policies that affected people.

Elegran
Then the cut-off point is in the wrong place, or the basic pension is basically not high enough.

Yes. So the decision to move the cut off point or increase the basic pension, would have been better addressed before RR doing something which KS had previously condemned.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Thank you Wyllow for your kind words upthread and to Elegran, yes I agree with you. I'm a numbers person who budgets and accounts for spending very careful and tries to make sense of what's going on! Thing is with the state pension, we are always playing catch up. Whatever the situation in September we don't get the benefit of it until the following April by which time other bills may be going up. Through careful shopping around for energy deals, home and car insurance, broadband so on, I find it fairly easy to keep costs broadly the same year on year (no escaping council tax rises) but not everybody has to strength to do it. It's tough if you aren't internet savvy or hearing is poor to deal with this over the phone or don't have family to help. I think we need more local advisors who can help people make sure they claim the benefits they are entitled to and help people negotiate the maze of better deals. I don't know to what extent CAB and Age UK are able to help. If only we could clone Martin Lewis and have one on duty in every community centre in the country.

Does anyone know if we need to shop around for a new energy deal now? I’m sure that Martin Lewis said a while back that with prices still fluctuating it wasn’t a good idea to get into a fixed rate contract..Maerion, thank you for your informative posts. I’m afraid that, since the referendum I tend to get very wound up and emotional about political stuff.

Moneysavingexpert has a weak prediction of a 10% rise in the energy cap on 1 October 2025 and crystal ball gazing that it will remain unchanged on 1 January 2025.

There's a list there of current deals. Some have some hefty exit fees if you want to get out of a fixed deal. Some deals require a smart meter so bear that in mind if you have strong feelings about that. Some want you to switch to their broadband and mobile phone network. Some are supplier names I've never heard of so I doubt their resilience in the face of market shocks.

There's a handy calculator where you just enter your kWh usage or monthly spend per fuel together with the unit rates and standing charges for the deals being offered to see if a fix is:

• strongly worth considering,
* worth considering,
* borderline or
* not worth considering.

There's also stripped back calculator for Cheap Energy Club members which does take into account the July changes. Free and easy to join. Try both:

www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/are-there-any-cheap-fixed-energy-deals-currently-worth-it/

Eon had a great energy deal but, as you mentioned, the catch was I had to get a smart meter which I don’t want.

Dickens

Quokka

Removing a payment from those who really don’t need it to fund something else? What’s wrong with that?

Because those who are just above the PC cut-off point more than likely do need the WFA. These are the pensioners we are talking about.

Perhaps the answer is to firstly encourage those who are entitled to PC to apply for it? It appears there are many who have no idea they are eligible.

Sadly, no matter where you draw the line some will always fall outside it.

MayBee70

Eon had a great energy deal but, as you mentioned, the catch was I had to get a smart meter which I don’t want.

Maybee The three non-fix tariffs that are being flagged in MSE’s Cheap Energy Club all look good: EoN Next Pledge, EDF Energy Ensure and Octopus Tracker & Agile - although I'm not sure I have the nerve for the last one. The middle one looks good for low users (as I am) as it’s a discount on the standing charge.

The fix being offered by my current supplier makes no diffence if the new cap is a 10% increase. Cheap Energy Club (based on Cornwall Insighs latest) is projecting up 13% in which case I’d pay £3 a month more on the cap than the fix. Exit charges on the fix are £75 per fuel so I’m sticking with the cap for now.

All the flagged non-fixes and the fix by my current supplier require a smart meter. Obviously, the Octopus Tracker and Agile needs one. I’m not keen to have one for all the usual reported reasons of unreliablility of installation and operation but I am tempted by EDF Energy Ensure for the discount on the standing charges.

Ofgem set suppliers annual targets for installation and fine them when they miss. They all miss. I suspect voluntary take up has peaked and they are now left with the dogged refusniks! Total fines for missed 2022 targets were 10.8 million. That’s why suppliers pester us to have them.

It’s the standing charges that really bug me. When my heating is off, which is usually seven to eight months of the year, my standing charges are half my monthly bill.

In March 2024, Martin Lewis tweeted:

Standing charges! I know they drive many of you up the wall. I believe they're an unfair energy poll tax and a moral hazard that disincentivises people from cutting bills. I tweeted the other day how I've long been campaigning on this, and that it's Ofgem who sets them. Many of you said "surely the govt" can lower them. So I thought it worth me speedily bashing out a note, to explain the nightmare of the way these work, a lack of joined up government if you like. - Ofgem is an independent regulator set up by govt. It is set up to make these decisions, which involve commercial firms, at arms length from govt (and is judicial reviewable). - It was given the remit (even though many of its past DGs thought it a bad idea) to set up the price cap, and the price cap is what dictates the standing charges most people pay - Firms simply price at the cap (though could go lower but there's no competitive incentive for most to do so) - After years of pushing Ofgem is finally consulting on the standing charge, and the response from the public has been enormous. - Yet some charities, including the venerable Citizens Advice, are worried that if you lower standing charge (which by definition would increase the unit rates as this is just about where you put the fixed costs) vulnerable high use customers, eg those with disabilities or medical needs, would suffer. The obvious path through this is of course... A) lower standing charges as its a moral hazard and B) at the same time provide specific help to those vulnerable higher users when you do. The problem is Ofgem is responsible for A and the government is responsible for B. Yet these things don't usually work in concert (I've an imminent meeting with Sec of State for energy where I will be pushing for just that) so Ofgem will struggle to decide to drop standing charges without factoring in the vulnerable high users because it has no power to do anything about that independently. So it would have to decide to drop standing charges, and hope the govt does something, but that is unlikely to be a route regulators can base their decisions on. Which is why I'm worried unless the two act together, nothing will happen. It's a frustrating situation.

The last MSE update on this:

Update: Tuesday 28 May 2024: While the gist of this MSE News story on energy regulator Ofgem's standing charges review still stands, you can no longer respond to the call for evidence as the review closed on 19 January 2024 – though we're still awaiting Ofgem's final response.

With the election and change of government, I suspect it may all be up in the air again but there's definitely scope for postitive change if something can be worked out to help vulnerable higher users.

Quokka

Dickens

Quokka

Removing a payment from those who really don’t need it to fund something else? What’s wrong with that?

Because those who are just above the PC cut-off point more than likely do need the WFA. These are the pensioners we are talking about.

Perhaps the answer is to firstly encourage those who are entitled to PC to apply for it? It appears there are many who have no idea they are eligible.

Sadly, no matter where you draw the line some will always fall outside it.

Sadly, no matter where you draw the line some will always fall outside it.

Obviously.

But perhaps the line should be drawn higher up?

Pension credit theoretically prevents pensioners from living below the 'poverty-line' - so being just above it still equals impoverishment.

If the WFA is scrapped this autumn, then those pensioners who've budgeted with the allowance in their budget, then they will have not been given a grace period to save any money towards it.

I wonder if phasing it out would have been better, slowly reducing it across the board, with larger payments for the genuinely hard up

MissAdventure

I wonder if phasing it out would have been better, slowly reducing it across the board, with larger payments for the genuinely hard up

Possibly - but I think it was the easiest option, less admin, etc.

There are other ways to plug this alleged "black hole" - apart from the accountancy rules used to decide what it actually is. However, public spending is always the first option, as we know.

I cannot, to use a weird expression, get my head around the idea that the poorest pensioner on pension credit can live for a year on £11,500 approximately, with of course the huge addition of the £200 WFA, whilst the minimum wage brings in approximately £20,000 a year. If a person needs £20,000 a year to live on, why are pensioners expected to manage on only a little more than half that?

I know nobody around here who earns anything like twenty thousand a year, though.

Good question maddyone. It looks too that the gap is widening year on year.
financial-advice.co.uk/2024/01/the-widening-gap-national-minimum-wage-vs-new-state-pension/

The NMW is topped up with means-tested benefits, paying the profits of exploitative employers from taxpayers' money. Nobody (or very few people) will actually live on it. Maybe someone in a couple whose partner brings the household income (another unfair measure) to higher than the level that has been decided people 'need', but generally speaking it is notional. It is blatantly unfair that two people in the same job on the same money end up with different amounts because one has a well-paid partner and the other doesn't. 'The labourer is worthy of his (or her) hire', and all that. Means-tests drag everyone down.

The thinking is that many pensioners have bought houses, so have no housing costs in later life and don't 'need' as much to live on. Home buyers pay interest for decades (out of taxed income) only to have the value of their assets means-tested away if they need care in later life, and can't afford to pay without selling them, so as ever, those in 'the middle' lose out. Mooted 'caps' on spending disadvantage those whose houses have not benefited from the investment in some areas that keep house price differentials across the country so skewed, and again, it's an unfair system from top to bottom. I really hope (but don't expect) that it will be comprehensively overhauled to be fair to everyone.

Sorry if this is a silly question, but to return to the question of the WFP, the Cold Weather Payment is still available to those on benefits (presumably including PC). I'm thinking of the money paid when the temperature drops below a certain level for a set number of consecutive days, or similar. If so, maybe that could be increased so that everyone on benefits gets more help with heating bills? If I'm right, it is paid to people of all ages who claim certain benefits (eg PIP). If it's not, perhaps that could be brought in so there is no perceived intergenerational unfairness?

It still leaves the injustice of the means-test, though, and as ever there will be those just above the limit who won't qualify, and those who have struggled to be self-sufficient who will have their struggles count against them.

Casdon

Good question maddyone. It looks too that the gap is widening year on year.
financial-advice.co.uk/2024/01/the-widening-gap-national-minimum-wage-vs-new-state-pension/

I had to look it up but it doesn't appear those figures include pension credit. (might be wrong, do cross check) It doesn't increase the pension by a great deal but includes gateway benefits.

Doodledog I'm getting different answers about getting WFA on top of PIP? PIP is not means tested like PC.

I took it to be just the core benefits Wyllow3 - it would be very complicated to compare otherwise, as a lot of people on the living wage will presumably also be entitled to help with housing etc? It’s hard to envisage there ever being a totally ‘fair to everybody’ system, however hard any government tried to achieve that I think.

Wyllow3

Doodledog I'm getting different answers about getting WFA on top of PIP? PIP is not means tested like PC.

All the same, someone who is disabled will need the heating on more than someone who isn't.

You won't get an argument in favour of means-testing from me, in any case .

On reflection, I think the CWP should be increased, and paid to everyone on benefits, but acknowledge that this will mean that those in low incomes will miss out. Also, if this happened it would be interesting to see whether the SP counted as a benefit or not. It seems that sometimes it is and sometimes not, and rarely to the benefit of pensioners.

Casdon

I took it to be just the core benefits Wyllow3 - it would be very complicated to compare otherwise, as a lot of people on the living wage will presumably also be entitled to help with housing etc? It’s hard to envisage there ever being a totally ‘fair to everybody’ system, however hard any government tried to achieve that I think.

Agreed. (ditto Doodledog)

So often it's a question of the "how" to be fairer without including overwhelming administration costs and possibly presenting people with an even more complex system to get help.

Wouldn't life be much better - for so many people if those in work were paid a wage that they could actually live on, and pensioners a pension that sustained them above the poverty-line - so no-one had to have top-ups, tax credits, PIP, pension credit, etc, etc?

Why are we saddled with an economy that requires the state - taxpayers - to subsidise employers maintaining their profit margins at the expense of its workforce? Why do pensioners have to exist on the minimum to keep body and soul together? How much does the administration of these convoluted benefits, allowances, top-ups actually cost?

Why don't we have a government that invests in its people?

As long as we accept Thatcher economics of individualism and greed to maintain the status-quo - oh, and Boris Johnson's "greed is good" ideology; as long as we OK free-market libertarian values - and believe that our public services are better run by private enterprises and companies - from health to prison services - then so long will we have cuts, and more cuts - and even more cuts on top of those cuts in public spending; and so long will the wealth-gap widen between the haves and have nots. And so long will those at the bottom of the heap shoulder the burden of this moveable 'black hole' - moveable because it's calculated according to accountancy whim and economic forecasts. It can be increased or decreased according to who is making the calculation, by caprice. It can even be made to disappear

The only way to grow the economy is to put disposable income into people's pockets, and to invest in public services which then generate activity in the private sector.

Other countries appear to be able to run a robust Capitalist economy and invest in its people. Why can't we?