State pensioners born in certain years given immediate Winter Fuel Payment increase
State pensioners born in certain years given immediate Winter Fuel Payment increase
The payment is worth £100 more depending on when you were born
Not everyone is aware of the price differences
(Image: Getty )
Millions of state pensioners were controversially stripped of their £300 Winter Fuel Payment over the winter, since the government declared the benefit would be means tested the issue has been highly contentious. It means the vast majority of state pensioners will no longer receive a £300 payment unless they claim a qualifying benefit.
Subsequently, Sir Keir Starmer announced a partial reversal on the benefit, pledging to reassess the eligibility threshold to reinstate the payment to more pensioners. The specifics of how this will be implemented or what the criteria might be have not yet been disclosed.
This week, Rachel Reeves announced that more pensioners will receive the winter fuel allowance this year, although it still won't be universal. Officials haven't yet said how many more pensioners will be eligible.
Rachel Reeves said: "We have listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means test and so we will be making changes to that. They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter.
"People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter."
However, many aren't aware that if you do qualify for the Winter Fuel Payment this year, the exact amount you receive will vary depending on your birth year and possibly other circumstances as well.
Article continues below
The Winter Fuel Payment was previously automatically given to all state pensioners, but until any changes are announced, the current rule is that you must be claiming a qualifying benefit such as Pension Credit.
Those who are of state pension age but under 80, meaning they were born on or before September 22, 1958, and who qualify will receive a £200 payment.
However, those aged over 80 - born on September 23, 1944, or earlier - will receive £300, reports the Express. For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here .
The amount you receive is determined by your age and circumstances during the 'qualifying week' of September 16 to 22, 2024. If you missed this period, you can backdate Pension Credit claims until December, so it's still accessible now.
Therefore, if you're over 80 and eligible, your Winter Fuel Payment will rise from £200 to £300.
Most qualifying individuals will receive a letter detailing the amount they'll receive and the bank account in which it will be paid to, this is typically the same as the one used for your Pension Credit or other benefits.
Article continues below
Age UK said: "If you or your partner claims Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or income-related Employment and Support Allowance, the payment should go to the main claimant of the benefit automatically.
"You should receive your payment between mid-November and Christmas. Call the Winter Fuel Payment helpline on 0800 731 0160 if you have any enquiries or you don't receive your payment."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves wants to level up your commute. Does she have the money?
'Biggest ever investment in city region local transport as Chancellor vows the 'Renewal of Britain',' trumpeted a government press release on 4 June. It was one of those headlines that feels like it should come with a '[citation needed]' tag. Have they accounted for inflation? When they say 'city region', are they gerrymandering to only count places officially designated by this relatively recent term? The total cash adds up to £15.6bn. There's a risk of apples and oranges here; yet it seems at least worth noting that London's Elizabeth Line cost £18.8bn. But let's hold the cynicism for the moment, because all this looks suspiciously like that rarest thing: good news from Rachel Reeves. The announcement more than doubles the real terms capital funding for nine city regions from 2027/28 to 2031/32: £2.4bn for the West Midlands, £2.5bn for Greater Manchester and so on. The list of 'projects likely to be taken forward by mayors' that accompanies it includes a dizzying number of potential schemes: an eastern extension of the Midlands Metro; new tram stops and a potential Stockport extension for Manchester's Metrolink; new rolling stock and station upgrades on the Sheffield Supertram; and so on. All this is cheering, even if you're not the sort of person who can while away a happy hour looking at public transport maps of cities you've never even visited, because there are reasons to think poor transport is one cause of Britain's economic malaise. Productivity, after all, tends to correlate with city size, and poor connectivity means that our cities are functionally a lot smaller than they look: the transport and economy writer Tom Forth has shown that traffic congestion means that Birmingham functionally shrinks by half in rush hour. It's not just that cities with good public transport are nicer, though they are: it's that, by linking employers with a larger pool of potential employees, they're often more prosperous. It's good news for political reasons, too. So much of what this government is doing – including, probably, the bulk of next week's spending review – feels unnervingly like presiding over decline. This isn't that. It has been pitched as a move towards rewriting the 'Green Book', the guidance the Treasury uses to value potential spending commitments – and which tends, because of London's prosperity and sheer size, to funnel money to the south-east. By allocating money to other regions, between them containing nearly 18 million people – over a third of England's population outside London – it's a baby step towards the levelling up the last government promised but failed to deliver. Not everyone is convinced: plenty warn this all has unnerving parallels with Rishi Sunak's proposals for 'Network North', which was neither a network nor really about the north. (The list of projects included stretched, hilariously, to Plymouth.) But I think that's too kind to Sunak and unfair on Reeves: there is a difference between a rapidly assembled list of unfunded projects press-released to counteract some bad headlines about the dismemberment of HS2 and an actual funding announcement by a sitting Chancellor. Will it be truly transformative? There appear to be a few shortcomings. For example, absent from the announcement is the long-awaited and repeatedly cancelled rebuild of Manchester Piccadilly station, which has long acted as a bottleneck for rail services across the north. Another absence is HS2 itself, which (sing along if you know the tune) would increase capacity on local services by getting fast trains out of the way. These would do wonders for multiple city regions – but they are excluded, presumably either because they are not 'city region' projects but strategic rail ones, or because they just cost too much. The last critique concerns the politics. It's great to see a government breaking with tradition and increasing, rather than slashing, capital funding – but the reason most chancellors tend to cut is because these projects take so long to show any benefits. The suggested timeline for the proposed West Yorkshire Mass Transit is both illustrative and absurd: 'spades in the ground' by 2028, the first services in the mid 2030s. Until then, it won't transform the economy, and may not help much at the next election – it could, in fact, do the opposite, by mobilising opponents who fear disruption to roads. It's good to see a chancellor invest. Let's hope she doesn't regret it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See more: Inside No 10's new dysfunction] Related
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
UK could face up to £30bn of tax rises to fund defence spending boost, economist says
Rachel Reeves could be forced to raise up to £30bn through tax rises or funding cuts as the chancellor seeks to meet Labour's pledge to boost defence spending, an economist has claimed. The government has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, and has an 'ambition' – but no firm commitment – to raise it to 3 per cent in the next parliament, after 2029. But the UK's Nato allies are expected also to push for a fresh target of 3.5 per cent, with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte pushing for a 'dramatic increase', with discussions over a possible 5 per cent target – as called for by Donald Trump – also taking place. And Sir Keir Starmer this week vowed to make Britain 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' as a long-awaited defence review called for major upgrades to the UK's military. While the major proposals were based around Labour's current spending pledges for 2027 and the next parliament, the report warned that 'as we live in such turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster' on increasing the UK's defence capabilities. Michael Saunders, a senior economic adviser at the Oxford Economics consultancy, suggested that the government could take steps towards this in the chancellor's next Budget. 'To establish a more credible path to defence spending 'considerably north of 3 per cent' next decade, the government may decide in the autumn Budget that it needs to add some extra spending within the five-year OBR forecast horizon,' said Mr Saunders. 'It's not hard to see pressures for extra fiscal tightening of £15bn to £30bn,' he told The Telegraph. Fiscal tightening involves either raising taxes or cutting government spending. Earlier this week, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), also warned the only way to pay for the increased defence budget would be through 'chunky tax rises' as the government grapples with other key areas of public spending. He told Times Radio: 'You really do have to ask that question, what are the choices that you're going to make? Bluntly, it really does seem to me that the only choice that is available, is some really quite chunky tax increases to pay for it.' According to the IFS, hitting the 3 per target by 2030 would require an extra £17bn pounds between now and then which is yet to be accounted for. Sir Keir has previously said that increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent would mean 'spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027'. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also estimated that reaching 3 per cent by the next parliament would cost an additional £17.3bn in 2029/30. Speaking in parliament as the defence review was unveiled this week, Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said: 'It is staggering that we still don't have an answer to the vital question: 'Where is the money coming from?' The government has flip-flopped a number of times on 3 per cent.' On Tuesday, defence secretary John Healey failed to rule out tax rises to make Britain 'war ready' and insisted he was '100 per cent confident' the 3 per cent target would be met — but struggled to say how it would be paid for. It came as defence sources were reported to expect that Britain will be forced to sign up to a target to hike defence spending to 3.5 per cent by 2035 at a Nato summit later this month in a bid to appease the US president.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Whitehall attendance slumps in spite of Labour's pledge to crack down on civil servants working from home
Working from home in the Whitehall Blob is making a comeback under Labour, despite its promises of a crackdown. As a number of civil servants continue to shun returning to the office, attendances fell or remained static in more than half of government departments over the first three-month quarter of this year. The Treasury and Home Office were among 11 of 20 departments where attendance failed to improve despite the faltering economy and record numbers of migrants arriving this year. Chancellor Rachel Reeves 's office had the worst attendance rate among major departments (63 per cent), despite having to compile next week's spending review – when brutal cuts to some departments will be announced. Attendance also dropped at Bridget Phillipson's education Department (71 per cent to 67 per cent), which helped oversee a hike in VAT on private school fees, as well as at Home Secretary Yvette Cooper 's department (78 per cent to 76 per cent). The departments where attendance rates lowered were the Northern Ireland Office, which fell from 65 per cent to 57 per cent, and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales, which plummeted from 81 per cent to 60 per cent. While attendance improved in some, the average rate across all departments fell from above to below 75 per cent from January to March. Meanwhile, between January 2024 and May 2024 – the months before the snap general election called by former Tory PM Rishi Sunak – attendance across Whitehall had an average of 77 per cent. The appalling figures come despite Sir Keir Starmer hitting out at civil servants in December. He said: 'Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline.' He also pledged to increase public sector productivity after it dropped to 8.5 per cent lower than just before Covid-19. But critics said the latest analysis of official figures, carried out by the Mail, showed Labour was going soft on productivity. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Mike Wood said: 'This Labour Government is not serious about delivering the reform the civil service so desperately needs. 'The last Conservative government had a plan to not only get civil servants back to the office, and increase productivity, but also to cut the bloated size overall – but Labour has totally failed to grip this issue or follow through. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Mike Wood said: 'This Labour Government is not serious about delivering the reform the civil service so desperately needs. 'It is not surprising attendance rates are down when Labour supports lazy initiatives such as part-time work for full-time pay' 'It is not surprising attendance rates are down when Labour supports lazy initiatives such as part-time work for full-time pay. 'Taxpayers are being taken for a ride. Only Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives are serious about clamping down on this sort of nonsense.' William Yarwood, of the TaxPayers' Alliance campaign group, said: 'The last government had some success in its war of attrition to get bureaucrats back behind their desks. 'But instead of building on those efforts, Labour has taken its foot off the gas. 'Labour ministers need to realise that if they want civil servants delivering on their priorities they need them in their office.' A Government spokesman said: 'Like at any organisation, small fluctuations in office occupancy can occur from month to month due to holiday, sickness or other events.'
