Experts warn pensioners over "unfair" winter fuel payment cliff-edge

EXPERTS have warned pensioners over the "unfair" winter fuel payment cliff-edge of £35,000.

The Government’s decision to claw back Winter Fuel Payments in full from any individual with taxable income above £35,000 has raised serious fairness concerns, according to financial experts.

The £35,000 threshold creates a cliff-edge – a pensioner with taxable income of £35,001 will lose their Winter Fuel Payment (worth £200–£300), while someone earning £35,000 keeps it in full.

The rules apply to individual income, not household income. This means a married couple with a joint income of £70,000 (£35,000 each) could retain their Winter Fuel Payment, while a single pensioner on £35,001 will lose theirs entirely.

Scott Gallacher, Director at Leicester-based Rowley Turton, said single pensioners often face higher relative living costs, as they bear council tax, utilities, and household bills without the ability to share these expenses.

He added: "It’s ludicrous that a single pensioner on just £35,001 loses a Winter Fuel Payment, while a couple with £70,000 joint income might keep theirs. This isn’t just unfair — it undercuts the government’s own growth agenda. 

"If you want older workers to return or stay in work, you can’t penalise them with cliff-edges like this. Means-testing should reflect household income or use a taper, not an arbitrary line that punishes being just a pound over. When will the government learn?"

Eamonn Prendergast, Chartered Financial Adviser at Bromley-based Palantir Financial Planning Ltd, said the cliff-edge feels “more like lottery” than a fair system.

He continued: “The £35,000 cliff-edge is a blunt instrument that punishes single pensioners the most. A couple on £70,000 can keep their Winter Fuel Payments, but a widowed pensioner on £35,001 loses theirs entirely, that’s hard to justify as fair policy. 

"Household bills don’t halve just because you live alone, and single pensioners often face higher relative costs. A tapered withdrawal would be far fairer than an all-or-nothing cut-off. 

"At the very least, the system should recognise household income, not just individual income, if it genuinely wants to target support. Right now, this approach feels less like a cost-saving measure and more like a lottery and it risks hitting those who need help most.”

Samuel Mather-Holgate, Independent Financial Adviser at Swindon-based Mather and Murray Financial, added: "The debacle surrounding the way in which winter fuel payments was handled could make any circus act look better than what it was... and it is.

"However, that being said there are several improvements that could still be made, much like how child benefit was finally implenented, by taking account of household income and tapering away the relief. 

“Winter fuel payment is relatively modest in comparison to child benefit, and this is a simpler method for HMRC and ultimately the government. 

"With the state pension benefiting from the triple lock, many younger people see these benefits as grossly unfair, and for the small beans of £200, some say pensioners should be grateful for what they have got.”