Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Could the following discretionary rule not be applied?
Providers may also use their discretion to fully fund other learners if both
of the following apply. The learner:
160.1. receives other state benefits (not listed in paragraph 159) and their takehome pay (disregarding Universal Credit payments and other benefits) is
less than £343 a month (learner is sole adult in their benefit claim) or £549
a month (learner has a joint benefit claim with their partner), and
160.2. wants to be employed, or progress into more sustainable employment,
and their take-home pay (disregarding Universal Credit payments and
other benefits) is less than £343 a month (learner is sole adult in their
benefit claim) or £549 a month (learner has a joint benefit claim with their
partner), and you are satisfied identified learning is directly relevant to
their employment prospects and the local labour market needs
I've struggled to find a clear definition of 'State Benefit' other than money paid by the government to help people in need - would Asylum Support (the scheme which uses the Aspen card) not meet that criteria?
I've always used this list:
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax/taxfree-and-taxable-state-benefits
Chris Roberts
AEB Full/Co Funding
Created
Morning
If an AEB learner isn't claiming a state benefit and isn't working but has an income of less than £17004.00 can they be fully funded?
We have a group of ESOL learners that are currently awaiting an outcome on their universal credit applications. They are currently getting something called aspen which gives them a minimal income of about £30 a week.
Thanks