I have already been down this route in 2005 with long thread on rightsnet ( i was henderson then if anyone refers me to my own thread!). but I am returning to it again as have concerns about how TCO will treat claim for a new case.
Client on IS, 4 kids ( IS for 2) ROA for other two (her sisters children). they were in care of LA, had been separated and eventually court ordered they were to live with her - hence RO and ROA.

I am concerned that they will say as LA making a payment that client not responsible for children (2 of them) for TC purposes and therefore does not qualify for CTC.In fact they have said this on phone that she would not qualify for this reason.

thinking of putting CTC claim in but the last time ( that other thread) ended up at appeal and did win but.....

clarification on this please as cannot get it clear in head. The other case I had child had never been in care of LA.

Thank you

also client has just told me she was awarded special guardianship (she says it is new) which means unlike a RO she can change childrens names and take them out the country without permission. she has full parental responsibilty.

There is nothing in the Tax Credit Regs. that says specifically that children who are the subject of an RO ar an SGO can claim CTC. The point is that they DON'T fit into any of the axclusions listed In Reg.3, CTC Regs. In particular Case A and Case B in Rule 4, which cover children who are placed in their accommodation by the LA under S.23, Children Act, do not apply. Children subject to an RO ar an SGO are not placed by the LA but by the Court. And the orders of the Court are made under S.8 (RO's) or S.14A (SGO's), Children Act, not S.23. So it's just the "normal living with test" which they can pass without difficulty.

Just claim CTC in the ordinary way I suggest and ignore telephone advice. I can't remember what the TC600 actually asks about this but probably just whether the children are placed under S.23, to which the answer is 'no'.

The incopme position is more definite, fortunately. Both RO and SGO allowances paid by the LA are completely disregarded under paras.11(b)(RO's) and (bb)(SGO's)Table 6, Reg.19 TC Definition + Calculation of Income Regs.

Richard Atkinson

thank you for that. I was airing on the side of putting the claim in. they just don't seem to get it at the TCO!
In my 2005 case they insisted that the child had been placed by local authority under reg 23 and that carer was not responsible for child. I am anticipating the same again but at least I feel I have my head roundit this time to be able to deal with. cheers.

having just been reading a case all about special guardianship and it's powers, my view would be that your client should get ctc for those two children; if TCO don't like it then clearly you'll be off to tribunal but worth the effort i would have thought.

i would also suggest that it seems special guardianship is so new it post dates tax credits, so possibly a letter to MP might be in order to see if that that be pointed out through political channels also...

Thank you again for the postings. I will let you know of outcome of claim.

As it is now August and your query was raised in Feb I'm sure it is all now in hand. HoweverI wanted to mention assessment of income in the calculation of residency order allowances by the LA and by IS.

The old Is claimants can of course claim for children for with residency orders as they have PR but also for those children for whom they claim residency order allowance (although this will be assesed by IS as income up to the child dependant amount and disability premium if applicable - over this amount the imcome is ignored). The beauty of CTC is that residency order allowances are ingnored altogether thus making the family instantly better off.(Adoption allowances, adoption finacial support Special guardianship orders are not paid out of sec 23 money ever, Residency orders souldn't be either)Don't beleive the advisors on the TC helpline who often can't understand the distiction between SAP and adoption fincial support - don't even try to get them to get a handle on the difference between fostering and adoption payments, even ther own guidance is unclaer. However anyone who recieves a payment from the local authority should get a letter stating the section under which it is paid and wether it is taxable or not.Ask the LA paying the money if the claimant doesn't know.

As far as the assessment of income by the LA in terms of the residency order allowance this differs between LA's so the details should be checked before advising the person with PR to claim as it may be that the ROA is reduced or ceased as a result of the CTC's claimed and counted as income(especially if the child is also eligible for the dis elements of CT).This is more unlikey when the person with PR is on IS as this usually passports to maximum ROA.

Consideration of the ROA(Adoption allowances etc) assessment should also be made when advising people paid a residency order allowancewho wish to return to work or increase work hours. I have found a fine balence between income made up from CTC and ROAs and wages.

The world is fickle and I often come across families being paid by two or more LA's both with different considerationsof assessing income. Joy of joys!

As this was very probably too late to help hope it might be useful next time.