My client's husband has no recourse to public funds and is a PSIC. Client is on single person's rate of income support on basis of recent pregnancy and will claim JSA again when baby is 15 weeks old.

Problem is getting HB and CTB into payment now that husband is in the household. It's been held up endlessly because the council are asking for a NINO, which he doesn't have. His passport is in the bowels of the Home Office and is likely to be so for some time. The husband has an IS96 letter from the UK Border Agency, which contains his photograph, and also a letter from his solicitors confirming that "to the best of our knowledge at the time of writing this letter the photograph at the foot of this letter is a true likeness of the above person", with his photo endorsed with the solicitor's stamp as Solicitors and Commissioners of Oaths.

Advisornet 9.4.12.10, paras 62a nd 62b says that husband doesn't need to provide a NINO to claim HB/CTB but will have to provide evidence of identity.

As the above says "evidence" rather than "proof" do I have any grounds to argue with the local council that they should bring the HB and CTB into payment on the basis of the IS96 and the letter from the solicitors.

The HB and CTB stopped from 15.12.08 when husband joined his wife, and they now have an NSP for rent arrears, and are desperate. Also four children, youngest of which is 2 weeks old.

Any ideas?

"As the above says "evidence" rather than "proof" do I have any grounds to argue with the local council that they should bring the HB and CTB into payment on the basis of the IS96 and the letter from the solicitors".

I would have thought so.

Thu 15-Oct-09 01:07 PM by stainsby

If you want legal precedent to back up what Paul says (and he is most definitely right in what he says.) Try referring the LA to the following

Kerr v Depatment for social Development of Norther Ireland (House of Lords- reported as R1/04(SF))
CP/3037/2004
R(SB)33/85
R(I)2/51

All of the above cases confirmed that corroboration is desirable, but there will be circumstances where it may not be possible for a claimant to produce corroborative evidence and so the matter has to be determined on the evidence available.

Baroness Hale also said the following at paras 62-63 of the second appendix in Kerr

" 62 What emerges from all this is a co-operative process of investigation in which both the claimant and the department play their part. The department is the one which knows what questions it needs to ask and what information it needs to have in order to determine whether the conditions of entitlement have been met . The claimant is the one who generally speaking can and must supply that information. But where the information is available to the department rather than the claimant, then the department must take the necessary steps to enable it to be traced

63If that sensible approach is taken, it will rarely be necessary to resort to concepts taken from adversarial litigation such as the burden of proof. The first question will be whether each partner in the process has played their part. If there is still ignorance about a relevant matter then generally speaking it should be determined against the one who has not done all they reasonably could to discover it. As Mr Commissioner Henty put it in decision CIS/5321/1998, “a claimant must to the best of his or her ability give such information to the AO as he reasonably can, in default of which a contrary inference can always be drawn.” The same should apply to information which the department can reasonably be expected to discover for itself. "

As an aside, it's worth noting that there is no express legislative requirement for evidence of identity. The evidence of identity is a by-product of the NINO requirement, where evidence (or information) must be provided to show the NINO is allocated to THAT person. But, as stated, there is no EXPRESS provision requiring evidence of ID.

Thank you for this. Great help.

Regards

Chris.