‘Not living, just trying to survive’: Council’s benefit mistake costs vulnerable couple £7,200 a year

‘Not living, just trying to survive’: Council’s benefit mistake costs vulnerable couple £7,200 a year Exclusive: An unexpected letter turned the lives of Buxton residents Sandra and Colin Ralphson upside down - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments A terminally ill grandmother and her husband are thousands of pound worse off after following advice about welfare payments from their local council, leaving them struggling to afford food. Sandra and Colin Ralphson, from Buxton in Derbyshire, are £600-a-month worse off due to the error, which the council admits arose through “no fault” of their own. The issue began after Mrs Ralphson, 60, was wrongly told by High Peak Borough Council in August she must move her ‘legacy benefits’ to universal credit within two weeks as her husband, Colin, was turning 66 – pension age. After this point, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would end her main benefit, the local authority said, making it “no longer possible” for the council to support her with housing costs. This information was wrong – something Mrs Ralphson only found out long after taking the advice that is now set to permanently cost her and her husband £7,200 a year. The error has forced them to “give up everything”, Mrs Ralphson says, as they cut back on all but the bare essentials to cope with the loss. She suffers with lupus, stage 3 kidney failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She said she had lost a lot of weight as she prioritises buying food for her husband, who recently suffered a heart attack. “I don't want to go out of the house,” she says, “I don't want to get dressed.” “I think: ‘this isn't me’. I'm Yorkshire. I should be stronger, but I'm not. You put on a brave face, but what can you do?” Mrs Ralphson had visited the DWP’s ‘Move to Universal Credit’ page and completed the steps to apply for the newer benefit after receiving the letter from her council, effectively ending her Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claim. At no point was Mrs Ralphson informed by the department’s system that what she was doing would result in such a life-changing loss. Since 2023, the government has been moving claimants of all six ‘legacy benefits’ to universal credit, delivering on a scheme first set in motion by the coalition government in 2012. These are child tax credit, working tax credit, housing benefit, income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance (JSA), and employment and support allowance (ESA). The full impact assessment from the time, the latest any government has produced, says the policy is designed to reduce the “complex array of benefits which interact in complicated ways,” to “improve work incentives”, and to reduce “welfare dependency”. Under the rules of the scheme, claimants must wait for a migration notice before moving to the newer benefit if they are to be eligible for transitional protection to ensure they will not see an immediate loss of income through the process. Mrs Ralphson reasonably believed the letter from the authority meant she had received her notice. A spokesperson for High Peak Borough Council admitted to The Independent that the document could have provided “greater clarity” and “more detailed information” regarding the situation. Have you been affected by any of the issues raised in this story? Get in touch: [email protected] The authority said it sent her the letter after the DWP notified it twice of a change in her benefit entitlement due to the couple becoming a ‘mixed-age couple’ – when one partner has reached pension age and the other hasn’t – which meant she would no longer be eligible for council-administered housing benefit. It added that the DWP later issued a correction notice confirming this was an error, and that the benefit in question had been reinstated, but only after Mrs Ralphson had already made the move to UC. It said it has requested the DWP consider awarding transitional protection. Welfare guidelines indicate that the council could instead have suspended Mrs Ralphson’s housing benefit while investigating the discrepancy, rather than sending her a warning immediately. As she was the lead claimant, and not her husband, she would not have lost her entitlement. Meanwhile, the DWP said it no longer holds any record of the notification, and has advised the Ralphsons to discuss financial redress with the authority. Through the finger-pointing, the couple continues to suffer the consequences. “My one pleasure while being ill and being laid up a lot was watching TV,” Mrs Ralphson said, “[but] I've even cancelled my telly license, so now I don't even watch things I like to watch.” “I feel like I've given everything up. I'm not living anymore, I'm just trying to survive.” Reacting to the case, Caroline Abrahams, Age UK charity director, said: “The complexities of the benefits system for mixed-age couples continue to cause confusion and administrative errors, often resulting in significant hardship for this already vulnerable group of claimants. “The case covered here highlights how important it is that well-resourced independent information and advice services are accessible to everyone who needs them. “At Age UK we are concerned about the disparity in income between couples where both partners are of pension age and those where one partner is still of working age. In many cases, the younger partner is unable to work because of their own health condition or because they are providing care for their older partner. It is high time that the policy is looked at again.” A DWP spokesperson said: “We understand this is a difficult situation. “Because Mr and Mrs Ralphson chose to move to Universal Credit voluntarily, and were therefore not moved through managed migration, transitional protection did not apply. “We have advised Mr and Mrs Ralphson to pursue financial redress with the Local Authority.” A High Peak Borough Council spokesperson said acknowledged that “the situation arose through no fault of Mr and Mrs Ralphson”, adding that it has “asked the DWP to consider awarding transitional protection”. “We recognise the stress and uncertainty this situation has caused them and believe that applying transitional protection would be fair and reasonable. We are waiting for a response.” Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments