Can anyone tell me if there has been an SI amendeing Schedule 1 to the above regs? this is the schedule refeerred to in Reg 9 where a claim for one benefit can be treated as a claim for another. it doesn't mention JSA at all, with the consequence that my client, who cannot qualify for Contribution Based JSA, has not been treated as making a claim for income based JSA .....all because JSA isn't mentioned

I've googled it, but can't see anything....anyone know?

Assuming that Reg. 3 of the C&P regs doesn't help; looking on our CD-Rom you can see that the original 1987 regs had (with apologies for the formatting - the first on the line is the main benefit and the remainder the alternatives):

BENEFIT CLAIMED AND OTHER BENEFIT WHICH MAY BE TREATED AS IF CLAIMED IN ADDITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE


Benefit Claimed Alternative benefit
(1) (2)
Sickness benefit Invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.
Invalidity benefit Sickness benefit or severe disablement allowance
Unemployment benefit Sickness benefit, invalidity benefit unemployability supplement, severe disablement allowance or invalid care allowance.
Severe disablement allowance Sickness benefit or invalidity benefit.
An increase of unemployment benefit, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance or of invalid care allowance. An increase of sickness benefit,
Sickness benefit for a woman Maternity allowance.
Invalidity benefit for a woman Maternity allowance.
Severe disablement allowance for a woman Maternity allowance.
Maternity allowance Sickness benefit, invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance.
A retirement pension of any category Widow's benefit.
A retirement pension of any category A retirement pension of any other category.
An increase of sickness benefit or invalidity pension An increase of severe disablement allowance.
Attendance allowance An increase of disablement pension where constant attendance is needed.
An increase of disablement pension where constant attendance is needed Attendance allowance.
An increase of severe disablement allowance An increase of sickness benefit or benefit.
Income support Supplementary benefit, attendance allowance or an invalid care allowance.


since then there have been numbers of amendments as benefits are introduced, removed or have their names changed.

In none of the various and comprehensive Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations on our CD-Rom can I find any reference to JSA and IS linking.

As you can see above, there used to be linking for UB to some sickness benefits but this was removed by the The Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Jobseeker's Allowance Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996.

thanks.

after 11 years, you have to think this is deliberate policy not to amend, rather than oversight....

Various commissioners have pointed out that JSA is one benefit not two. Thus I would argue that were a person makes a claim for either Con/JSA or IB/JSA then the DWP should investigate whether the claimant is entitled to either or both.

I had a case some years ago where my client only claimed IB/JSA. The claim was refused on income grounds. The commissioner ruled that the tribunal (and by implication the DWP) should have investigated whether she was entitled to Con/JSA also and substituted his own decision that she was so entitled.

He also decided that the DWP were estopped from determining that a decision saying that she was not entitled to JSA only applied to IB/JSA. This was obviously important as this meant that she could appeal the refusal of IB/JSA so as to allow an investigation as to whether she was entitled to Con/JSA.

"I had a case some years ago where my client only claimed IB/JSA. The claim was refused on income grounds. The commissioner ruled that the tribunal (and by implication the DWP) should have investigated whether she was entitled to Con/JSA also and substituted his own decision that she was so entitled.

He also decided that the DWP were estopped from determining that a decision saying that she was not entitled to JSA only applied to IB/JSA. This was obviously important as this meant that she could appeal the refusal of IB/JSA so as to allow an investigation as to whether she was entitled to Con/JSA."


OOH .. i don't suppose you have the decisin, or can give me the number so i can trace it? thanks, you're a star....

CJSA/1080/2002. Should be available in all the usual places. If it isn't I can e-mail you a copy.

regards
Paul

got it, thanks paul ...

Claire

I owe you an apology. I have just re-read the decision and I was wrong. The claimant did claim Con/JSA and IB/JSA. However, the reference to JSA being one benefit still stands and I believe that there is still an argument in there somewhere.

Paul

Yes, i think you're right paul; i was really looking for the handle to get into it, and this decision provides that if nothing else!

Cheers

Claire

The commentary to section 4 of the Jobseekers Act states that the “ section is concerned with the amount of a jobseekers allowance. The various rules it contains arise out of the fact that JSA is a single benefit with two different elements: contribution based JSA and income based JSA”.

Thus just as DLA is one benefit with two components thus giving tribunals the power to consider entitlement to one component where the claimant has only claimed the other, so, by the same token, does JSA fall.

Further support for this view can be found in section 1 of the Admin Act headed “entitlement to benefit dependent on claim”, where benefit is defined as, among others, “a jobseekers allowance”.

Thus a claimant cannot be expected to know the complicated workings of the benefit system. Where a claimant says to the Department I wish to claim JSA then the DWP must explore his entitlement ton the allowance as a whole, and, likewise, a tribunal.

thanks Paul - off to advise client re putting appeal in!

just add to the above, some time ago I came across this decision which was dealing with an IB and a IB in youth and the questiion was whether two seperate claims needed. Commissioner Jacobs disagrees that it does because its the same benefit with two different copnditions of entitlment. I summarised it and this is it:

CIS/1410/2005

"Although he dismisses the claimant's appeal, Commissioner Jacobs disagrees with the Secretary of State's contention that there needs to be a 'separate claim' made for IBIY. He holds that the wording of Section 30A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 does not create IBIY as a separate benefit but only a different set of conditions for those whose incapacity began in youth".

If it works for IB/IBIY then why not for IB/CON jsa?

cheers.

turns out (after a converastion with the DWP appeals officer this morning) that the client had been told several times to claim IB JSA and refused to fill in the relevant information ... which doesnt' mean they shouldn't have asked him about it all at interview when he signed on, but doesn't help much eithr....