Independent Revenues & Benefits Monday Discussion Group
10 November 2025
The latest Monday Discussion Group, chaired by Malcolm Gardner, explored pension credit take-up, changes to notional pension income rules, and the real impact of the new national minimum wage.
Pension Credit Take-Up
Gareth Morgan (Dangos Training) opened the session with analysis of new DWP data showing wide variations in pension credit take-up between local authorities. While roughly three-quarters of eligible pensioners receive the benefit nationally, there are sharp contrasts between areas such as Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, where around 75 per cent claim, and Powys and Ceredigion, where only about half do.
In London, take-up rates range from 89 per cent in Tower Hamlets to 59 per cent in Richmond upon Thames. Gareth suggested that historic investment in welfare advice services may help explain these disparities.
Sean O’Sullivan noted that the highest-performing councils tended to be those that, in the past, targeted attendance allowance and pension credit take-up to strengthen their grant assessments from central government. When the incentive was withdrawn, several councils continued that proactive work through dedicated welfare teams, maintaining stronger take-up.
Rachael Walker added that boroughs with an established outreach culture — including Hackney, Newham, Greenwich, and Southwark — still tend to perform well. She described these as councils that see benefit take-up as part of their core service to residents, rather than a one-off campaign.
Paul Howarth agreed, emphasising that targeted, data-informed take-up campaigns are far more effective than broad awareness drives. He also noted that take-up rates calculated by expenditure tend to be higher than those by household count, as people eligible for larger awards are more likely to claim.
Tom Clark questioned how timely the data were, noting that London’s fuel-payment-linked campaigns last year had prompted a spike in claims that might not yet be reflected in published figures.
Malcolm concluded that sustained, targeted local campaigns consistently produce measurable improvements and are an area where proactive councils see long-term benefits.
Notional Pension Income and Local Authority Administration
Gareth then highlighted an overlooked policy change: updated Government Actuary Department (GAD) tables used to calculate notional pension income. Introduced quietly in September, these revisions alter the assumed income from untaken pension pots — increasing it for younger pensioners while reducing it for older ones.
He warned that benefits teams may not be revaluing untaken pensions as frequently as regulations require, leaving assessments outdated and inconsistent.
Sean O’Sullivan raised the issue of “lost pensions”, which are likely to increase as people move between short-term jobs and accumulate multiple small pension pots.
Paul Howarth linked this to wider benefit complexity, suggesting that it reinforces the case for simpler local CTR schemes that remove notional income calculations entirely. He argued that these rules create administrative burdens, confusion, and potential inequity.
Julie Smethurst and Naomi Armstrong agreed that small recalculations of notional income rarely yield meaningful savings for councils once staff costs are factored in.
Gareth acknowledged the tension between fairness and practicality but noted that regulations still require reassessment whenever withdrawals are made. He quipped that the “ferret notional income calculator” remains the simplest solution.
Minimum Wage and Benefit Interaction
Turning to the new national minimum wage, Gareth examined how far the rise translates into genuine gains for low-income workers. He calculated that a £2.70 hourly increase equates to roughly £19 extra gross per week for a full-time worker, yet those on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction may keep as little as £1.85 after tax, National Insurance, and taper effects.
Sean O’Sullivan observed that banded CTR schemes can exacerbate this, as small pay rises may push claimants into higher bands, causing disproportionate losses.
Rachael Walker agreed, describing the situation as one where “politics and spreadsheets” leave people no better off, despite government claims.
Naomi Armstrong said her authority mitigates this by uprating income bands each year in line with the national minimum wage to maintain parity and reduce “cliff edges”.
The discussion turned light-hearted when Malcolm remarked, “What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas,” after Gareth joked about retirees saving their pension pots for more adventurous spending.
Complexity, Advice and Financial Planning
Gareth and others reflected on the lack of financial planning support available to low-income households. While wealthier individuals can access tax advice, benefit claimants are often left without guidance on how to structure their income or savings.
Malcolm suggested that the DWP could explore “financial coach” roles alongside job coaches, aimed at helping people navigate benefit rules and make informed decisions.
Sean O’Sullivan cautioned that very small Universal Credit awards can create hardship if conditionality rules require claimants to attend regular appointments or travel long distances. Gareth countered that even minimal awards can unlock wider passported entitlements — such as NHS and travel concessions — often worth far more than the direct benefit payment.
Crisis and Resilience Fund
To close, Malcolm drew attention to DWP proposals for a Crisis and Resilience Fund, which would consolidate multiple local welfare schemes into a single flexible allocation from April 2026.
Paul Howarth said the reform appears likely but warned it could reduce overall support if budgets are merged without protection: “We need to watch it like hawks,” he said.
Bob Wagstaff added that combining funding across county and district levels could be linked to future local government reorganisation, with potential cuts disguised as structural reform.
Rachael Walker supported simplification but warned against further fragmentation: “Each council keeps reinventing the wheel. We need fewer, better schemes.”
Sean O’Sullivan agreed, saying a single access route would help those genuinely in need: “Right now, the only people who manage to claim everything are those who know how to game the system.”
Malcolm closed by thanking all participants for their thoughtful contributions. Next week’s discussion will be led by Tom Clark, examining the changing indices of deprivation and their implications for Liverpool.
The recording can be found HERE
The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group continues to provide a vital forum for expert analysis, shared learning, and open debate at a time of significant policy flux.
For more information or to join future sessions, contact Malcolm Gardner at Visionary Network. info@visionarynetwork.co.uk
Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).