WTC disability element for couples – Some colleagues and I started to have a discussion (as you do) on whether a disabled partner who is not working at least 16hrs/wk can attract this element.

The WTC ( entitlement & Max. rate) Regs 2002 – Reg 9 (1) basically states the disability element should be included if the claimant, or in the case of a joint claim one of the claimants –
1)a) undertakes remunerative work;
1)b) satisfies the disadvantage test; and
1)c) satisfies the qualifying benefit test.

The discussion centred on the lack of an ‘and’ between a) and b).

It was wondered if this meant that for a couple one of them has to be in remunerative work and either they or their partner could satisfy the disadvantage and qualifying benefit tests.

But if this were the case why have a remunerative work requirement for the element since everybody on WTC has already satisfied it – so to get a disability element the person(s) satisfying the disadvantage test & qualifying benefit test must also be in remunerative work.

Does anybody else have an opinion on how this regulation should be interpreted?

I remember having this kind of esoteric discussion with a tribunal chair once. He was of the opinion, following a certain CD, (the number of which I cannot remember - it was an incap one I think) that a colon, or semi-colon, could be read as an 'and'. While I agreed with him in general I did not agree it applied to the reg' in my client's case. It was a JSA reg' and the whole structure of it was different to the reg' in the above case and reading a semi colon as an 'and' would have made the whole reg' lop-sided.

Generally, though, and in the above reg' I would say that the sub-paras are linked and must be read together, so that 1a,b and c must be satisfied.

Just as the comma in the above sentence links 1a and b together.

Are there any grammar courses for welfare rights officers?

Many years ago, I worked at the former DSS Office of the Chief Adjudication Officer when it was in Southampton. I dealt with law issues and guidance for decision makers (adjudication officers in those days). It was well established that in the drafting of legislation, a list of sub-paragraphs linked by semicolons and a final 'and' were cumulative in effect. This follows standard English grammar rules - see Lynne Truss: Eats, Shoots and Leaves - the Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation.

I, too, remember a case where a claimant appealed to the Commissioner on the basis that this was not so - he thought only the final two sub-paras should be thus linked. He got short shrift from the Comm. - pity I can't remember the number of the CD! It's immaterial that in the guidance to AOs/DMs there's an 'and' after each sub-para - that's just belt and braces stuff for the avoidance of doubt.

Jim