Repository navigation
Describe the reg 60A Universal Credit route in Housing Benefit eligibility - #2658
Conversation
housing_benefit_eligible said Universal Credit is not available to a family meeting the Pension Credit age conditions, and that those conditions rule it out. Since #2119, is_uc_eligible admits such a family when it claims at legacy closure (a mixed-age couple claiming jointly, or a pension-age Working Tax Credit recipient under SI 2014/1230 reg 60A), and left_pension_route_at_legacy_closure takes an entitled family off the pension-age route. Comment and documentation only. Fixes #2657 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Aggregate impact on certified data: passBase Checks: 0 broken by this change, 1 failing on both sides, 0 fixed. Moves flagged for review: 0 (thresholds in Notes
Moves flagged for reviewNone. Spending by benefit and service
Caseloads
Standard reform costings (change in gov_balance)
Standard reforms: change in each reform's target
Household net income by decileNo household's net income changes in any year. No change in any year: receipts by tax head; government balance, each component counted once; model totals; household income totals; population; poverty rates; people in poverty; inequality; mean household net income in each side's own deciles. Checks failing on both base and head (1)
Counted-once checkEach of 88 components was raised by £1 per unit in 2026-27, and every head of its totals was read household by household: its own head must rise by exactly £1, no other tax head may move, no other benefit may rise, and the model's own total must move by what its heads moved. A head that breaks a rule is measured again twice: with every other head held at its baseline value, and with every other head held at its value after the first £1 while the component rises again. It fails where either still shows the response. 0 failed; 0 were skipped.
Provenance
Dataset: Receipts by tax head: head levels
Spending by benefit and service: head levels
Caseloads: head levels
Government balance, each component counted once: head levels
Model totals: head levels
Household income totals: head levels
Population: head levels
Poverty rates: head levels
People in poverty: head levels
Inequality: head levels
Mean household net income in each side's own deciles: head levels
Standard reform costings (change in gov_balance): head levels
Standard reforms: change in each reform's target: head levels
|
Per the independent review of #2658: state reg 60A's conditions (the claimant, or each joint claimant, on Working Tax Credit and not Pension Credit at the migration notice) and the model's reported-receipt proxy; say entitlement is read before cap reductions and deductions; replace the sentence that said a pensioner with an 18 or 19 year old dependant cannot get Universal Credit; mark the closure-only route as the model's choice; add reg 60A to the references. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Merge audit (UK hub, Claude Opus 5.5). Landing at head
|
Fixes #2657
The follow-up owed from the independent review of #2119 (round 4, nit 1):
housing_benefit_eligible.pydescribed the model before #2119.left_pension_route_at_legacy_closure). It also says that SI 2014/1230 reg 60A disapplies the upper age condition for that claim when, at the migration notice, the claimant or each joint claimant was entitled to Working Tax Credit and not to Pension Credit. The model reads reported Working Tax Credit and Pension Credit.is_uc_eligibleadmits a family on that route only when it claims at legacy closure, either as a mixed-age couple claiming jointly or under reg 60A, subject to the capital limit. The comment now says so, and keeps the point that no family on the route receives Universal Credit, becauseleft_pension_route_at_legacy_closuretakes an entitled family off it. It also stops saying that a pensioner with an 18 or 19 year old dependant cannot get Universal Credit. The dependant's age neither moves the family off the route nor makes it eligible.referencelist, as inis_uc_eligibleandleft_pension_route_at_legacy_closure.Round 1 of the independent review asked for these corrections (
23920c640).Comment, documentation and reference only: no formula, parameter, input or test changes, so no population impact.
axiom: n/a: code-comment and variable-documentation change only; eligibility, inputs, parameter values and calculations are unchanged.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code