There might almost seem to be a deliberate campaign by some of the press to mislead or distort the rules and rates around benefits entitlements. In particular, there seems to be a trend, amongst the usual suspects, to compare those in low paid, or no, work with those earning more in a way which implies that the ‘hard-working families‘ are worse off.

Last month I pointed out the Daily Telegraph for its regurgitation of a Centre for Social Justice piece which compared, or, rather, didn’t compare, two very different sets of circumstances while pretending that they were the same.  The Daily Mail and the Express also, unsurprisingly, joined in with enthusiasm. Today’s Mail piece still  links to their version of that article.

I pointed out in my posting at the time that their claimed “Families on modest incomes will be £18,000 worse off than jobless parents claiming benefits” should, in fact, have read “Working families on modest incomes will be £16k better off than benefit claimants after Budget” – Lies, Damned Lies and the Telegraph – Benefits in the Future

Today’s turn it’s the Daily Mail which has produced another humdinger of a headline.

How a couple with three children earning just £10,000 a year could ‘game’ the system to pocket the equivalent of a £140,000 salary

That sounds pretty impressive and, to be fair, Oliver Price, Assistant Data Editor, has actually provided some figures which might look, at first sight, persuasive.

At first sight.

Before I dig into the details, a little bit, I’d better get the inevitable out of the way – we are of course, once again, comparing very different circumstances. This time it’s a couple with three children versus a single high earner. At least, this time we don’t have adults and children with severe disabilities thrown into the mix.

We do also have, as I said, most of the figures we need given to us. The figures are precise and very carefully chosen, to the penny, to hit precisely the points most supportive of their proposition.

I won’t comment on their introductory piece, but jump straight to

How we worked this out

and follow it through from there. Their text is in italics

Our analysis takes the hypothetical scenario of a three-child couple living in central London who are claiming benefits.

To be eligible for Universal Credit you must have less than £16,000 in savings and be on no or a low income.

 The pair are earning the minimum required needed to get around the benefit cap, which equates to around one day a week each at minimum wage.

If the couple in our hypothetical scenario were out of work, their benefits would be capped at £22,000 a year, or £25,300 in London.

However, if between them they earn more than £846 per month – the equivalent of £10,152 a year – the overall benefit cap no longer applies.

To avoid the overall benefit cap, our hypothetical benefit claimants would need to work a little less than 800 hours a year between them at minimum wage to keep their earnings at £10,152.

This means that to maximise their benefits, they would each only need to work one eight-hour day a week.

So far so good.  They have identified that a couple, each working for 8 hours a week and living in Central London would, to the penny, just escape the application of the Overall Benefits Cap.

Oliver doesn’t mention another threshold, however. The ’Administrative Earnings Threshold’  is, currently, £1,534 per month for couples.  If earnings are below that, then both must

• show they’re actively looking for more, or better-paid work
• be available for work

If they fail to meet those conditions then they may be sanctioned which can include the removal of their benefit.

Our calculations assume that claimants receive the maximum amount for childcare costs and are entitled to a three-bedroom property under the local housing allowance.

We have also not included any benefits specifically designed for disabled adults or children or carer’s allowance in our analysis.

On Universal Credit they could claim:

Standard allowance: £667 a month – more than £8,000 a year

More than £8000 a year by £4 from April 2026.

Housing allowance: £497 a week – £26,000 a year

This is the maximum amount of help with private sector rents in the Central London area – £497.10 a week or £2,154.10 a month.  Taking Hammersmith and Fulham as the area, as it wasn’t specified, the average 3-bedroom rent in November 2025 was £2,875 per month. So, they might, typically, need to top up the help they received by £721 a month from their earnings to meet their obligation.

Child element: £304 per child per month – nearly £11,000 a year

This will be the figure from April 2026 following the removal of the 2-child limit in benefits.

Childcare costs: £1,032 a month for their first child and £736 a month for each subsequent child – nearly £31,000 a year for three children

To claim childcare costs both parents need to be in work or have a job offer, but official DWP guidance says ‘it does not matter how many hours you or your partner work’, so there is nothing stopping the parents offloading childcare at taxpayer expense despite working minimal hours.

A little learning is a dangerous thing.  There are some reasons why benefits advisers often spend many hours poring over legislation and guidance in order to make sure that benefit rules are properly applied.

The maximum help with childcare is, indeed, likely to be from April 2026, a slightly different, £1,072 a month for the first child and £765 a month for each other child.  This is based on the support being 85% of the actual costs paid for childcare.

Using the Mail’s figures, the couple would have to be actually paying out £459 a month to a registered childcare provider on top of the help being received. That’s over half of their net earnings.

The Hammersmith and Fulham average childcare rates were, in 2023 according to Nesta, the highest in London at £10 per hour. On that basis, each child would be receiving 23.5 hours childcare each week.  That is substantially more than the maximum of 16 hours work of the two parents combined.

Their joint net earnings are £881.23 a month and, according to Oliver, they will receive £2,601 a month of childcare help, in order to enable them to work.

I wonder whether there might be something that makes that level of childcare help unlikely?

We could look at whether it meets the conditions of Universal Credit regulation 33(1)(b)  (sorry) which says

“the charges are for childcare arrangements—

(i)that are to enable the claimant to take up paid work or to continue in paid work”

But we don’t need to.

Oliver said

official DWP guidance says ‘it does not matter how many hours you or your partner work’, so there is nothing stopping the parents offloading childcare at taxpayer expense despite working minimal hours.

“There is nothing stopping the parents offloading childcare …” he says, reading the guidance.  Had he read on a line he would have found,

‘Excessive charges and reductions

The amount of childcare charges paid by the claimant should be reduced where the DM considers those charges to be excessive when having regard to the extent to which

1. the claimant or
2. where the claimant is a member of a couple, the other member is engaged in paid work.

The amount of the reduction is the amount considered excessive’

It would be astonishing if this was not considered excessive. More, it would be pretty much impossible for this not to be considered excessive.

Earnings taper: UC will claw back -£2,800 a year as the couple need to repay 55p for each pound earned over the ‘Work Allowance’

I make it £2,997, but that’s quibbling

On top of the child element of UC, the couple would also receive the separate Child Benefit, which is paid to all parents, although those earning over £60,000 a year (pre-tax) have to pay it back.

Child Benefit: £26 a week for the first child and £17 a week for subsequent children – £3,000 a year

They would not have to pay it back despite raking in well over £60,000 a year, as their other income does not count as ‘earnings’ under the rules.

He doesn’t point out that the Child Benefit removal is tapered but that isn’t relevant in his examples.

Total benefit payments: £76,000

Untaxed combined salary: £10,000c

Net income: £86,000

Impressive figures but, perhaps, a little bit lacking in context, given that:

• probably well over £25,000 would be taken away as excessive childcare costs and they will have to top up what help they do get.
• the family are likely to be topping up their £26,000 a year rental costs by over £720 a month from their £880 per month net earnings.
• they are having to meet central London costs of living, with 3 children.

To earn a net income of £86,000, a single earner would have to have a pre-tax salary of £140,000, or a couple would need to earn £65,000 each.

Spot on, although they’re going to get that much even without having to pay for feeding, clothing and housing 3 children, paying central London rents and meeting childcare costs, which might leave them feeling a bit better off.

Daily Mail analysis today

The article claims to be ‘Daily Mail analysis’.  It’s clearly not. Analysis looks at real situations and attempts to understand the reasons behind the reality.  This is a carefully crafted, in many ways precise, construction designed to mislead people and reinforce the false message that people living on benefits in the UK are leading lives of luxury at the expense of others.

It’s not true.