Where are the provision which say that a new claim for Child Benefit needs to be made for each additional child? With other benefits, such as HB, CTB, IS etc, a new child would just need a supersession but child benefit insist on a new claim form. I've looked (honest I've tried) but can't find in the regs the rules making it different for child benefit. Can anyone set me straight on this one?

Thanks

i don't know about setting you straight, but i can point you to reg 5 of the Child benefit and Guardians Allowance (Administration) Regs 2003 in vol 3... of course, they don't xactly say that... : )

Thanks JJ, I'd read that: basically says you need to claim, do it on the proper form, might be acceptable if not on proper form but sufficient etc.

What I can't work out is why, when someone has an award of child benefit then has another baby the decision is not just superseded on grounds of a change of circs under reg 13 of the CB & GA (D&A) Regs. These seem to be pretty much in line with the D&A regs for DWP benefits. Mostly it would probably be in he claimant's interest to have it treated as a new claim because of 3 months backdating compared with the 1 month deadline for notifying a change of circs for supersession.

i don't know what they do but i suspect it's much more about the control of data than termination of existing awards. if just 5% of letters with birth certificates omitted the child benefit number, it would cause a massive admin problem at child benefit centre just through sheer scale. i can remember the days when CBC was in a mess and it wasn't pretty...
in the old clerical days, they used to have a shorter, supplementary claim form for additional children btw, but it was still a claim form, and again, i think it was for controlling data, rather than treating as new claims leading to new awards rather than supersessions, so yes it does seem a bit of a mish mash...

this might be too late, but i found this CD on the subject

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/commdecs/

Thanks but which one is it? - the link goes to a list of 6 decisions, none are CB ones.

R(F) 3/96

sorry - i thought the link took you straight there,,,
it's been that sort of a week : )

Thanks, that's great. I thought it was fatal to my case when I first read it but then saw reg 2(1)(c) of the SS(C&P) Regs 87 which includes an application for revision or supersession as a 'claim for benefit'.

phew! glad it was some help...funny what turns up when onthe trail... : )