- Posts: 454
IR ESA claification query.
- Gareth56
- Topic Author
- Offline
So if they worked e.g. 30 hours a disabled partner on CB ESA (SG) could claim IRESA if they didn't exceed the savings rule?
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.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 51287
Gareth wrote: Does it matter how much money a partner brings home if they satisfy the 24 hour work rule for ESA(IR) exemption viz. "regularly and substantially caring for someone who is in receipt of Attendance Allowance or the highest or middle rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance". That is their partner is on High Rate DLA care.
So if they worked e.g. 30 hours a disabled partner on CB ESA (SG) could claim IRESA if they didn't exceed the savings rule?
Yes and no.
First they would have to prove they were supplying "regular and substantial care" whilst they are working 30 hours a week, not impossible but they would have to do a lot of explaining, but assuming this is accepted, then you are still ignoring the income rule whereby the couples total income will be deducted from any ESA(IR) payment.
Thirty hours at NMW plus the ESA(CB) payments, even after deductions would still be in the region of £200 a week and whilst I have not worked it out for a while, the most you can get on ESA(IR) with all the Premiums is about £175.
Gordon
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.
- Gareth56
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Posts: 454
What's confusing is that even though someone may be not be classed as being in remunerative work their income i.e. their remuneration is taken into account!
So in one breath they are being classed as not being in any paid work then in the next breath their pay is taken into account.

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.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 51287
Gareth wrote: Thanks Gordon
What's confusing is that even though someone may be not be classed as being in remunerative work their income i.e. their remuneration is taken into account!
So in one breath they are being classed as not being in any paid work then in the next breath their pay is taken into account.
The guidance in this area is less than clear, for example there is no definition "regular and substantial care", the exemption is in relation to the 24 hour rule, but is not referenced in income, so it is possible that it is also exempted, but you would need to check, the point I was trying to make, and I don't think I did good job of it, is that you cannot ignore the income aspect.
Gordon
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.
- Gareth56
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Posts: 454
It was just something that caught my attention in the ESA FAQ section.
From providing the "regular and substantial care" requirement I suppose given that there are 168 hours in a week it wouldn't be too difficult to show that if you worked for example 30 of these hours then the remaining 138 were given over to care.
It does seem contradictory though that someone can be found exempt from being in paid work for the purposes of IR ESA if they provide this level of care but then have the money paid taken into account.
Just another one of the vagaries of the welfare system I suppose!

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.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 51287
I have had a chance to do a more detailed look at this situation.
As I said in an earlier post this scenario is not covered under any of the partners income rules in the Decision Makers guide, chapters 48-51, but I have found the following which seems to cover the situation, see Example 2 of paragraph 41343 in the following
www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch41.pdf
It is the reference to 41472.3, or rather the lack of it that I think provides the cover.
There is still no definition of "care" beyond being in receipt of Carers Allowance.
Gordon
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.