Undue pressure on claimant on IS re partner staying over?

hi -

just to be clear, did your client end the IS claim, or was it ended on the basis that she’s cohabiting?

cheers ros

Hi,

She has signed off as she felt she had no other choice as she wasn’t going to end the relationship and didn’t want to be investigated as she thought she would be unable to get any money whilst she went through the process.

Does this make a difference at all?

Thanks

The DWP and many local authorities have often used a “set number of nights rule” for this.  Let me say this unequivocally.  This is unlawful.  First, because there is no statutory basis for it and second, because it has all the hallmarks of a blanket policy.  The central question is whether they normally reside together in a common household.  It is trite law that a person cannot be a member of two households at the same time.  So, where does he usually reside?  This is a question of fact.  So various indices will be, where does he keep his belongings, where does he get his mail sent, where is he registered to vote, or for council tax, where is he registered with his G.P, employer, etc?  This list is illustrative not exhaustive.  Note, the statutory wording for HB and IS is different but the tests are fundamentally the same.

It’s easy to have a separate dwelling where you’re registered for council tax and to vote and to have your mail sent there, etc, and still, for all intents and purposes be living somewhere else, so no one or two factors will be decisive.  Cases have to be considered in the round.  “It is, however, necessary…...to appreciate that there are matters or signposts which may be relevant in deciding whether a….......couple’s living arrangements import the existence of a household.  But they are not writ in stone.  They may need to be adapted or, indeed, abandoned where common sense and experience dictates” (CIS/2127/2010). 

rgiles - 09 December 2013 11:07 AM

Hi,

She has signed off as she felt she had no other choice as she wasn’t going to end the relationship and didn’t want to be investigated as she thought she would be unable to get any money whilst she went through the process.

Does this make a difference at all?

Thanks

well, only that she can’t appeal against IS ending if she ended it herself.

personally, i think she should put in a new claim as soon as poss and ask for it to be backdated to when the last one ceased on the basis that she was misadvised by DWP officials which led to her ending claim.

that claim is likely to be refused but then will have right to appeal and get matter looked at by independent body - ie tribunal.

Nevip and Ros are absolutely correct. The client should also lodge a formal complaint about the over zealous DWP staff attitude; they have no right to say what they are reported to have said. These rules have not in essence changed since they were introduced in the early 1980s.

Peter (former Head of (then DSS BA) Benefit Fraud Investigation; South London and South East)

I once had 11 “living together” appeals in the course of 6 weeks because the DWP fraud section in Warrington had decided they were going to target single parents for investigation that summer. They used similar dubious methods to the ones described here. I can offer these commissioner’s decisions if you like, older but still relevant in describing what the DWP should consider befire deciding whether a couple are LTHAW:
R(SB)17/1981
CSSB/145/1983
CIS/087/1993
CIS/1401/1997
Sorry I can’t give links but can either post hard copies or scan them for emailing.

Carol Laidlaw - 27 December 2013 10:51 AM

I can offer these commissioner’s decisions if you like, older but still relevant in describing what the DWP should consider befire deciding whether a couple are LTHAW:
R(SB)17/1981
CSSB/145/1983
CIS/087/1993
CIS/1401/1997

here’s copies of R(SB)17/1981 and CIS/087/1993

Hi All,

Many thanks for your advice and guidance. I am pleased others see this as appalling behaviour and am supporting the client with her backdated claim, will keep people posted.

Many thanks once again

Ross

I had a similar case, where the local JC+ put this pressure on a former client. She said that she would need to talk to the boyfriend, they gave her a fortnight to discuss it with him & a new appointment. She went back to the second appointment & said “OK, we’re going to move in together properly. We weren’t going to at this stage in our relationship, but you’ve put pressure on us, so we will” and gave a date of about 3 weeks in the future for him to pack, give notice on his property, and actually move. JC+ said that wasn’t good enough, it was TODAY or fraud.  Not a happy family.

Slightly off topic, but a friend of mine who is a welf gave a talk about JSA sanctions, and some JC+ staff were present. He explained all about procedure, mentioned some succesful tribunal outcomes and also stated that Jobcentre Plus had acted illegally in their sanctions by not applying the law. Jobcentre Plus have put in a complaint about him saying that Jobcentre Plus break the law! Im sick of these people just doing what they feel like with no regard to applying the law. We see it day in day out.

“...and also stated that Jobcentre Plus had acted illegally in their sanctions by not applying the law. Jobcentre Plus have put in a complaint about him saying that Jobcentre Plus break the law!”  Do you know what words he actually used?