Thu 10-May-07 11:03 AM by glenys

Does anyone know if the fact of being in a franchise makes any difference to the calculation of Income Rules re HB (or IS for that matter). It appears the L.A. has taken the full previous year as income- as normally would- although the poor chap has not been able to work for 4 weeks and still continuing- so the argument would be that they should use a more "appropriate period"- ie the last four weeks when had no income from his driving instructor business.However I wonder if being tied to a franchise means you can't argue not in remunerative work for that period? In which case what on earth can people do?

Off the top of my head i can't think of any reason why this would not be treated the same as any other self employment. The only difference I can see is that in calculating income from this sort of work there may be additional expenses to deduct, e.g. franchise fees/commision payabvle to the franchisor.

thanks.
so do you think there is a chance he may be able to get hb to assess his self-employed income over a shorter period more related to his actual(ie nil) income during his sickness? and willl the dwp apply the same rules for income support while sick???

I cant think of anything in the regs which means franchise holders are treated any differently compared to other self employed people.

However the decision maker would need to be aware that a change of circumstances had occurred eg. no longer trading whether through sickness or lack of work.

If the form or accompanying documents showed that your client was not actually trading at the time of claim (Is/Jsa interview script would probably ask that specific question some La's include this question in their application form) then a request for revision may be appropriate.


If he has since stopped trading then a new claim may be needed showing the actual circumstances.

As you rightly say the previous years trading figures are not appropriate to base future earnings on if he is not working at present.

I broadly agree with the responses already made. If the clmt is not receiving any income during the period of sickness, it is a clear change of circs and the LA is wholly wrong to take income into account for another period where the circs are entirely different.

CH/0329/2003 may assist (it's on the Cmmrs' site).