Client has 23 year old son living with her. She gets full HB apart from a 8.02 non-dependant deduction for him while he currently receives no JSA he is subject to a sanction.

In Zebedee p486 it states that no deduction if under 25 and includes 'people who would get JSA(IB) except they are currently subject to a sanction'.

I can't find the regulation that specifically refers to sanctions. Can anyone help me out?

Regulation 74(8) of the HB regulations 2006 says that no non-dep deduction in respect of a person “on….JSA”.

This is probably confusing. Section 19(1) of the Jobseekers Act distinguishes payability from entitlement. So even though JSA not payable during the sanction period, technically the person is “on” JSA because entitlement remains.

Regards
Paul

Reg 74(8) refers to being 'on' benefit and not 'in receipt of'.

It's possible that he's still 'on' JSA?

Damn - off-line lag.

It is possible that, as the word "on" is not very clear, the LA has looked at the guidence manual which states

"aged less than 25 and receives IS or JSA(IB)"

I'm not sure if J membery is suggesting that the LA have been misled by the manual or that the manual is correct.

However unclear the reg might be i'm afraid the guidance manual is not just unclear it's wrong: a claimant who has a sanction applied to them has a subsisting claim for JSA and therefore is 'on JSA'. The Reg 74 (8) doesn't specify that he had to be 'in receipt of JSA' or 'paid JSA' and therefore he is covered by it.

The commentary on the pre 05 version of this reg in the CPAG HB book (Findlay et al) suggests that this provision was introduced to bring the HB/CTB rules into line with the IS/JSA rules for housing costs. Those, however, definitely use the words "in receipt of", which is also used in the commentary on the old reg, though that itself also used "on". Implication is that since that change to the HB regs the Commissioners haven't got their hands on the point. Impossible to tell whether the difference in wording is intentional.

Who's volunteering?

Brigid

Actually, a keen-eyed colleague of mine has kindly pointed out that this has been made much more complicated than necessary. He has pointed to HBR 2(3) which states:

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person is on an income-based jobseeker´s allowance on any day in respect of which an income-based jobseeker´s allowance is payable to him and on any day—

(a) in respect of which he satisfies the conditions for entitlement to an income-based jobseeker´s allowance but where the allowance is not paid in accordance with section 19 or 20A of the Jobseekers Act(a) (circumstances in which a jobseeker´s allowance is not payable); or

(b) which is a waiting day for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to that Act and which falls immediately before a day in respect of which an income-based jobseeker´s allowance is payable to him or would be payable to him but for section 19 or 20A of that Act; or
(c) in respect of which he is a member of a joint-claim couple for the purposes of the Jobseekers Act and no joint-claim jobseeker´s allowance is payable in respect of that couple as a consequence of either member of that couple being subject to sanctions for the purposes of section 20A of that Act; or

(d) in respect of which an income-based jobseeker´s allowance or a joint-claim jobseeker´s allowance would be payable but for a restriction imposed pursuant to section 62 or 63 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000(b) or sections 7, 8 or 9 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001(c) (loss of benefit provisions).


In short, someone is still regarded as being on JSA(IB) if they are sanctioned.

Regards