‘Regularly and substantially engaged in caring’

I have client who is regularly and substantially engaged in caring for relative but cannot claim CA because another member of the family already gets it (and does well over the 35 hours a week caring so there would be no justice in ending that claim).

My question centres around Reg 4 Sch 1B of the IS regs. Reg 4(a) says that a person regularly and substantially involved in caring etc is entitled to IS.  Para 4 b) says that a person regularly engaged in caring and in receipt of carers allowance is entitled to IS.

These don’t seem to be mutually exclusive, there is no “and” between 4a) and 4b)  so is there any reason why one person couldn’t get IS on the grounds of ’ regularly and substantially caring’and another person could get IS on the grounds that they are entitled to CA even if they were both caring for the same person?

Please forgive me if answer to this is either obvious or well known, its Friday and i’m not at my brightest!

None whatsoever.  I quote from the relevant part of Vol 4 of DMG:

“Regularly and substantially

20117 The words “regularly and substantially” should be given it’s everyday meaning. Whether someone is regularly and substantially caring is a question of fact for the DM(1)

Note: More than one person may be able to satisfy the carer provision at any given time.

1 R(IS) 8/02”

However, only the person claiming CA qualifies for the Carers Premium.

Thanks for that, having read through the case law and the DMG I feel fairlyy confident that the carer will be able to get IS.

can anyone advise me if the fact you dont claim CA because of loss of SDP on the person being claimed for the notional income rule would be used.

As Tom H says, the phrase regularly and substantially caring has its normal everyday meaning, ie there is no requirement to provide at least 35 hrs/wk care.  I think there is a commissioner’s decision to the effect that around 28-30hrs/wk is substantial, but I can’t put my hand on it now.  Hence if challenged the IS claimant says they provide just under 35 hrs/wk care, so no entitlement to CA and no question of having deprived themselves of it.

Gail Knight - 12 January 2011 12:11 PM

can anyone advise me if the fact you dont claim CA because of loss of SDP on the person being claimed for the notional income rule would be used.

Gail,
Check out DMG 28608   Notional income - Carer’s Allowance
Cheers

Has anybody got a copy of R(IS) 8/02?  Thanks a lot

here’s a link to R(IS)8/02 -

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=270

cheers ros

@ros

wow.. that was quick - thank you so much!