High Court hears universal credit minimum income floor case

By agency reporter
July 18, 2019

A legal challenge to the government’s universal credit scheme is being heard in the High Court 17 and 18 July 2019. The case relates to the controversial minimum income floor (MIF) which is applied to self-employed claimants of universal credit. The MIF has already been the subject of criticism by the Work and Pensions Select Committee and numerous other independent organisations. 

The judicial review is being brought by Charmaine Parkin, 34, of Brighton, represented by law firm Leigh Day.
 
Ms Parkin is a self-employed actor and director who also has caring responsibilities for her two young children. She argues in her legal case that the application of the MIF to her claim for universal credit has left her worse-off than she would have been if she was unemployed and claiming universal credit. 
 
The MIF is applied to claimants assessed to be gainfully self-employed and is calculated by an assessment of how many hours an individual is expected to be able to work each week (including caring responsibilities and other factors which limit working hours), multiplied by the individual’s national minimum wage for their age group.
 
The figure represents how much the individual would earn if they were an employed person in similar circumstances and assumes that they will earn at least the minimum wage and work the maximum hours they can every week.
 
If in a given month an individual earns less than their MIF then their universal credit payment is calculated based on the MIF (e.g. what the DWP assume that person should earn) and not their actual earnings. This leaves self employed claimants (whose earnings often fluctuate) with a shortfall when they do not meet the MIF and can leave an individual significantly worse off than an employed or unemployed counterpart. 

Parkin was assessed as being able to work 25 hours a week, this was multiplied by the minimum wage for her age group to calculate her MIF, which was set at £788.26 each month when she started her judicial review challenge and is now set at £861.11. Every £1.00 of assumed earnings over and above £287 per monthly assessment period reduces a self-employed UC claimant’s award by 63 pence.

The nature of Parkin’s work means that her earnings fluctuate from month to month. One month she earned only £96 but was treated as if she had earned £788.26 and her Universal Credit payment was reduced by £375.64. In other months she had no earnings and her expenses exceeded her income, but the MIF was still applied.
 
Despite the government’s repeated assurances that universal credit ‘makes work pay’ Parkin believes she would be better off unemployed as an unemployed individual in her position would have almost £400 a month more in universal credit and it would give her a stable income which would allow her to apply for reduced council tax.
 
Parkin said: “I am looking forward to my day in court to present my case as to why the government needs to look again at universal credit, especially for people who are self-employed. The government claims it wants to ‘make work pay’ but the minimum income floor has the exact opposite effect, causing me and others to believe we would be better off giving up the work we care so passionately about in order to secure steady and reliable universal credit payments to support our families.”
 
Tessa Gregory, solicitor from Leigh Day who represents Charmaine Parkin alongside Carolin Ott, said: “Nearly a sixth of the UK’s workforce is self-employed and so it is vital that we have a welfare system which reflects that reality and provides a safety net for the self-employed. Unfortunately, Universal Credit does not. The Minimum Income Floor appears to be designed to punish the self-employed. It fails to take into account the fact that many businesses and self-employed persons have fluctuating monthly income and instead makes it easy for the government to reduce the monthly benefits of self-employed people when they earn more than their expected income, but refuses to support them by increasing their benefits when they earn less. Our client believes that this is unlawful and is one of the many elements of universal credit that the government must rethink as a matter of urgency.” 

* Leigh Day https://www.leighday.co.uk/

[Ekk/6]

Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values. If you use Ekklesia's news briefings please consider making a donation to sponsor Ekklesia's work here.