Universal Credit and 11 benefits to be paid early this month – exact payment dates revealed
Benefits are paid into your bank or building society account earlier if your usual payment date falls on a bank holiday or the weekend.
1
The next bank holiday is on Monday, August 25, meaning if you're expecting a payment on this date it will be made on August 22.
So, if you check your statement on August 22 and notice a surprise amount of money, it will likely be your benefit being issued earlier.
If you are paid earlier than usual this month, make sure the money stretches further as you will have to wait longer than normal to get your next payment.
Universal Credit and 11 other benefits are paid on the first working day before a bank holiday. The full list is:
Attendance Allowance
Carer's Allowance
Child Benefit
Disability Living Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance
Income Support
Jobseeker's Allowance
Maternity Allowance
Pension Credit
Personal Independence Payment
State Pension
Universal Credit
Anyone paid one of the above 12 benefits on August 22 instead of August 23, 24 or 25, should receive the same amount as usual.
The only reason the payment amount might change is if you have had a change in your circumstances.
For example, if you are on Universal Credit and your earnings have increased, your payment might go down.
If you are expecting a payment on August 22 and don't receive it, contact the DWP.
You can also submit a complaint to the Government department to get a problem sorted if your payment is wrong.
How does work affect Universal Credit?
After August, there are two more bank holidays before the end of the year which could impact when you receive your benefits.
Here's when DWP or HMRC will make your payments:
December 25 - payments will be made on December 24 instead
December 26 - payments will be made on December 24 instead
Upcoming changes to Universal Credit and PIP
Last month, the Government U-turned on its welfare bill meaning Brits on Universal Credit and PIP will see fewer changes.
Sir Keir Starmer had been hoping to push through reforms that would have seen some benefit claimants receiving less money.
The Government had planned to make major changes to the health element of Universal Credit.
A single person who is aged 25 or over can receive the basic level of the benefit, which comes in at £400.14 every month.
But those getting an incapacity top-up due to a disability or long-term condition can get an extra £423.37.
Are you missing out on benefits?
YOU can use a benefits calculator to help check that you are not missing out on money you are entitled to
Charity Turn2Us' benefits calculator works out what you could get.
Entitledto's free calculator determines whether you qualify for various benefits, tax credit and Universal Credit.
MoneySavingExpert.com and charity StepChange both have benefits tools powered by Entitledto's data.
You can use Policy in Practice's calculator to determine which benefits you could receive and how much cash you'll have left over each month after paying for housing costs.
Your exact entitlement will only be clear when you make a claim, but calculators can indicate what you might be eligible for.
The new plans mean that anyone up to the age of 22 will not be able to claim the health element.
Ministers had also tried to freeze the payment for the next four years but a commitment was made for it to go up with inflation.
That means people claiming the health element of Universal Credit and new claimants with the most severe conditions will see their incomes protected in real terms.
Meanwhile, PIP claimants would have faced stricter tests to qualify for support.
The Government had put forward that people would need to score four points in one task such as washing and dressing to qualify for support.
Currently they can qualify with eight points across multiple activities.
The Government initially partially u-turned, saying the changes would come into effect in November 2026, but anyone claiming the benefit before this date would not be impacted.
However, following a rebellion from 47 MPs, the Government shelved the PIP plans entirely. You can find out more in our guide.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I was slapped an £18 Clean Air Zone fine then wasted FIVE months and £100s fighting the tickets... council is to blame
On the face of it, an innocuous work trip to Bristol offers the chance to get out of the office and take in a new part of the country with a few colleagues. But, for Colin Griffiths, what promised to be an enticing two-day visit to the West Country turned into a five-month ordeal as a battle over a pair of Clean Air Zone fines prompted sleepless nights, a ruined holiday and a spiralling bill on the company card. The 56-year-old, from Bedford, was initially handed a reduced penalty of £18 but, despite paying it immediately, saw it increase more than 10-fold to £267 after the council claimed he had not coughed up the cash. In reality, it was the local authority that had been kicking its heels, taking weeks at a time to respond to Mr Griffiths's appeals and hiking the fines with no apparent rhyme or reason. The beleaguered employee eventually paid the heavily inflated amount just to put the nightmare behind him, but it left a distinctly sour taste in his mouth. He told the Daily Mail that he should not even have been fined in the first place. 'I didn't see any any notices whatsoever,' he said. 'Absolutely none. 'My friend, subsequently, said, "yeah, they're an absolute nightmare, their signs are not obvious at all."' A month after his two-night stay in the city in early October 2024, Mr Griffiths was told by the company's accountant that he had received two fines for breaching a Clean Air Zone in the Green Party-run city. The policy was introduced in November 2022 and applies to all vehicles except a limited number of petrol-powered vehicles released since 2006; one type of diesel vehicles released since the end of 2015; fully electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; Energy Saving Trust's Clean Vehicle Retrofit Accreditation Scheme vehicles; and motorbikes. It is one of seven such zones in England, with London boasting a similar but separate Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez). But Mr Griffiths was none the wiser about the scheme, which meant his car had been slapped with a £9 daily charge, boosted to £69 each thanks to a supposed delay in paying despite the council not contacting him for four weeks. He appealed both of them - a decision that would prompt months of misery and a penalty which would soon spiral out of control. It took the council a further four weeks to respond to his correspondence, at which point it said he could be let off with a £9 fine for the Sunday offence, with seemingly no news regarding the Saturday one. Mr Griffiths claims he paid this straight away, through the link and code provided, and the money left his account, heralding what he thought was the end of an already frustrating ordeal. He should be so lucky. In January, Bristol City Council revisited the saga and told him he had not paid the fine after all and that he had supposedly ignored letters of reminder over the festive period. An investigation later found that he had paid the sum to Bath Council instead, although Mr Griffiths is insistent he used the link and reference code provided by Bristol. The local authority also finally got back to Mr Griffiths about the Saturday penalty and said that this was also late, meaning he owed £129 for this one alone. All this, despite it being the first correspondence he had had regarding the Saturday fine since he appealed it back in November. 'They just kept putting on more and more fines and fees,' he said. Nonetheless, he dug into his pockets to pay the penalty and end the saga once and for all. But it was still far from over. In February, Bristol revisited the Sunday penalty, claiming he had not paid it in December when he said he had. It turned out the fine somehow went to Bath Council despite Mr Griffiths using the link and code provided by Bristol in their email. The upshot was a rehiking of the already hiked penalty, the £120 added onto the original £9 would be shooting up to £180, creating a mega Clean Air fine of £189. Bristol also threatened the increasingly stressed Mr Griffiths with a court appearance. 'I'd been on holiday, and I was getting really stressed about this because their senior manager just wasn't interested in communicating with me anymore,' he said. 'So on that basis, [they said] "tough, it's going to go to a debt recovery agency, so we'll see you in court." 'I actually can't be dealing with this - it's a lot of money, but I don't need the aggravation. It's ruining my holiday. I'm having sleepless nights.' He gave in - and paid the eye-watering £189 figure Bristol had concocted, meaning he had now spent £267 on the two fines, including the £9 December payment and the £69 January transfer. This was painful for Mr Griffiths, who insists he did everything right and any delays were caused by the council's own tardiness. 'I did everything that they asked,' he said. 'I dealt with everything in a timely fashion as soon as I received it and paid them straight away, and even chased them. 'It's upsetting, and I like to do the right thing by people. And I was on holiday and getting these emails, I'm like, "I don't need this aggravation and worrying about it", especially as it's a company car, not mine, and I'm worried. 'My boss knows I wouldn't have abused his hospitality, but it was very stressful, it really was. 'Absolutely [the fact it was company car made it more stressful]. I just felt totally pressured into paying it. 'I paid it and I had to bite the bullet and walk away. I cannot emphasise the stress it put me under.' Will it make him think twice about visiting the Green-run city again? 'Definitely. My friend's wife said you can't obviously see the signs for the Ulez - they don't make it obvious at all,' he said. 'It's a money-making scheme.' For Mr Griffiths, the time for apologies is over and only a refund could make him feel better about his Clean Air Zone nightmare. He added: 'I would love my money back. Not expecting a penny out of them though. It was outrageous. 'I want my money back. Not an apology. 'I can't see compensation happening, but 100 per cent (think I'm entitled to it). They're keyboard warriors - or bullies rather.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Chelsea poised to recoup £65m after breakthrough day of sales - with three players on the brink of exits to Premier League clubs
Chelsea have had a day of breakthroughs in sales with Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, Lesley Ugochukwu and Armando Broja all closing in on permanent departures to fellow Premier League clubs. Everton entered into talks over Dewsbury-Hall with a deal worth an initial £25million plus add-ons quickly worked on. The 26-year-old midfielder cost £30m when Chelsea signed him from Leicester City last year as he became a squad player under Enzo Maresca, starting twice in the top flight. Ugochukwu, 21, and Broja, 23, are also on the verge of signing for Burnley, sources close to the newly-promoted club have said. Their exact fees have not yet been confirmed, but they are believed to be around the £20million mark for each. Both players are understood to have agreed five-year deals with Scott Parker 's side. Chelsea are continuing to work on other outgoings, with Borussia Dortmund in talks over bringing back Carney Chukwuemeka after the 21-year-old spent the second half of last season on loan there. Tyrique George could yet join Chukwuemeka in Germany after an enquiry from RB Leipzig, while fellow 19-year-old Marc Guiu is expected in the North East to finalise a loan to Sunderland barring any late hiccups. Chelsea's players returned to Cobham for pre-season training on Monday after a three-week break following the Club World Cup. Sources have said that those actively up for sale, such as Raheem Sterling and Ben Chilwell, are expected to continue to work separately to Maresca's main group as Chelsea work on finding new clubs for those deemed surplus to requirements.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on water boss's undisclosed bonus: Labour won't fix a system it won't confront
Despite the noise around England's sewage scandal, the political response so far has mostly generated headlines, not real consequences. Ministers performatively 'rage' about polluting water companies. Regulators are rejigged. Laws are passed. Yet little actually changes. The latest manoeuvre by Yorkshire Water is a case in point – and a revealing one. In March, the company was ordered to pay £40m for the 'unacceptable impact' of sewage spills blamed on poor maintenance. It was one of six firms caught by Labour's new bonus ban for the most serious polluters, passed under the Water (Special Measures) Act earlier this year. But the company confirmed to the Guardian that its chief executive, Nicola Shaw, received an additional £660,000 for 'investor-related' work last year – on top of her £689,000 take home pay. The money did not come from Yorkshire Water directly, but from Kelda Holdings, the firm's offshore parent. Using complex corporate structures to sidestep regulatory scrutiny is not a new trick. Many water companies are structured to allow financial engineering to take place at one remove from the regulated business. But Yorkshire's executive reward scheme reveals something important about the nature of the bonus ban itself: its design left scope for avoidance. If companies can reclassify pay or shift it between entities, enforcement becomes a matter of interpretation. Ministers say they are 'aware' of the payments and Ofwat is 'assessing' them. But this is a now-familiar Whitehall formulation – passive, conditional and hollow. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, appears to have a habit of making threats he doesn't back up. When Southern Water, also under the bonus ban, nearly doubled the pay package awarded to its CEO to £1.4m, Mr Reed's response was to urge him to turn it down. No ministerial direction to investigate. No legal challenge or legislative amendment. Just a suggestion. Why the timidity? Because Labour's tough talk on water is just words. It won't touch the system that enables this behaviour, and ministers bend over backwards to reassure markets they never will. The Treasury wants Thames Water kept private – warning Mr Reed a £4bn rescue through nationalisation would gut his entire budget. No wonder he keeps shroud-waving about the cost of public ownership The government seems dazzled by private providers. Regulators are being asked to offer 'forbearance', as Mr Reed's Independent Water Commission suggested. No doubt they had in mind Thames Water, which is facing an estimated £1bn in Ofwat performance penalties. The logic seems to be that enforcement risks spooking the investors needed to fund long-overdue infrastructure upgrades. But this reveals the real problem. England's water system has been financialised to the point of dysfunction. Layered holding companies, offshore entities and opaque capital structures mean regulators are chasing shadows. Attempts to govern via gesture – bonus bans, naming and shaming – are no substitute for structural reform. Most countries retain public ownership, recognising water as a public good, not a commodity. The idea that better people could fix the system is a fantasy – decades of extraction, debt-loading and dividend grabs show the model itself is broken. If Labour truly wants to clean up the nation's waterways, it must confront a hard truth: the incentives of private capital and the obligations of public interest, health and accountability do not align. Until then, expect more sewage, more euphemisms and more payments that defy the spirit – if not always the letter – of the law. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
