Catch 22 for dependants of EU workers?

I can’t quite get my head around this.
My clients are EU citizens who are dependants of their adult children who are workers in the UK. Mother is receiving DLA, father CA. He is applying for IS. Under appeal.
My concern is: If his claim for IS is granted, so he now has a decent income and could get HB & CT relief etc if he were to move into his own rented house, will he become effectively independant, and therefore ineligible for IS on grounds of being a dependant. Could he then get locked into an endless cycle of being awarded IS, then having it stopped, and then applying again, being awarded, etc?
It looks like Catch 22.
(I know that there’s a test case being considered about whether a carer receiving CA can be considered “a worker” in their own right. That could help my client. But I’d appreciate input on this actual issue.)

Have a look at the Lebon case which discusses this endless circularity (dependant, therefore entitled to benefit, therefore not dependant, therefore not entitled to benefit, therefore dependant again ... and so on and on):

IT MUST BE POINTED OUT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT A CLAIM FOR THE GRANT OF THE MINIMEX SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF A MIGRANT WORKER’ S FAMILY WHO IS DEPENDENT ON THE WORKER CANNOT AFFECT THE CLAIMANT’ S STATUS AS A DEPENDENT MEMBER OF THE WORKER’ S FAMILY . TO DECIDE OTHERWISE WOULD AMOUNT TO ACCEPTING THAT THE GRANT OF THE MINIMEX COULD RESULT IN THE CLAIMANT FORFEITING THE STATUS OF DEPENDENT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY AND CONSEQUENTLY JUSTIFY EITHER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MINIMEX ITSELF OR EVEN THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE . SUCH A SOLUTION WOULD IN PRACTICE PRECLUDE A DEPENDENT MEMBER OF A WORKER’ S FAMILY FROM CLAIMING THE MINIMEX AND WOULD, FOR THAT REASON, UNDERMINE THE EQUAL TREATMENT ACCORDED TO THE MIGRANT WORKER . THE STATUS OF DEPENDENT MEMBER OF A WORKER’ S FAMILY SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE GRANT OF THE MINIMEX

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1987/R31685.html

I would suggest that the comments elsewhere in the decision about its scope being limited to the family members of workers are not relevant to this particular point because Directive 2004/38/EC defines family members the same way for all R2R purposes

Just to reinforce the above posts, I have had a few of these cases and when they are successful (usually after a hearing) the DWP in practice don’t take it further. One case was a German client who was mentally ill and dependent on her mum, with whom she lived - after we won the appeal she was re-housed but neither the DWP nor the LA questioned her dependency status.

Thanks so much to both of you. Just what I need.

PCLC - 17 January 2014 01:36 PM

Just to reinforce the above posts, I have had a few of these cases and when they are successful (usually after a hearing) the DWP in practice don’t take it further. One case was a German client who was mentally ill and dependent on her mum, with whom she lived - after we won the appeal she was re-housed but neither the DWP nor the LA questioned her dependency status.

Not always so…. Just got another similar case. Dependant client had been awarded PC. However, it was suspended without explanation for 4 months. After a lot of prodding PC letter makes it clear that, because client’s working son moved out to another property, they assume client no longer dependant. This is despite PC award including a £75 pw deduction, because of son’s support. They are asking for proof of ongoing dependancy. Could be a bit difficult to respond, because most help has been in cash. Any suggestions? (apart from a letter from son stating the cash support given)

See CIS/2100/2007, http://www.administrativeappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=2426, it gives very good analysis on dependency.

Peter - I had no idea that was going on in PC. Clearly contrary to the Lebon case mentioned by HB Anorak.