Client and mother have started a joint tenancy in a new home and client has lost SDP entitlement. Have argued that Reg 3 (2B) (2C) of IS Gen regs should apply as client meets the criteria but 'specialist' DM says no. Any thoughts welcome.

My reading of paragraph 2(C) is that paragraph 2(B) applies if the joint liability arose on or before the actual date that the claimant first occupied the dwelling.

The current version of the paragraph was aimed at shutting out situations where the close relative moved in after the claimant and the joint liability was created at that (or a later) point.

That is my understanding of it. Prior to this tenancy the client was in a refuge and her mother lived elsewhere. They decided that they would get a joint tenancy and both moved in to the new property together at the same time. Therefore her mother should not be considered a non-dep. So as I understand it she should keep her SDP. Would you agree?

Absolutely.

Cheers

Happily clients SDP reinstated. Always nice to help the DWP understand their own rules.

Keeps us in work, I suppose!

Tue 31-Mar-09 04:56 PM by stainsby

Yep. I often tell people round here how at 18 I joined the claimants union and failed my A levels because I spent so much time causing trouble in the social security office by representing people.

Now nearly 40 years later I am a graduate and get paid a salary thats a bit above the mean average wage, ... to cause trouble in the social security office.

I have had a number of cases where the decision makers dont understand the SDP, whether its joint tenants, or whether its a case where the carer wants to claim IS without also claiming carers allowance in order to protect the SDP for the person being cared for.