Maybe this is just an example of how paranoid I'm becoming in our "Brave New World"

S1(1)A & B Admin Act demands that the client must give enough info for a NINO to be allocated.

In the light of the new application process, where a NINo will not be allocated unless someone has a "right to work", can S1(1)B still be satisfied if the client has, in fact given enough info for a NINo allocation but it will not be so allocated for teh lack of leave to remain?

Subsequently might this in fact Bar every couple where one person is PSIC from claiming any benefits at all?

I have been thinking about this and I'm wondering whether there's an analogous argument to that raised through Chiltern/Warden, R(h) 2/03, r(h)3/04 and CH/4243/04, in that where there's a decision, i.e. a refusal of a new claim, against which an appeal lies, but which is based partlly on a public authority's discretion, i.e. reg 5(6) Tax Credits (claims and notifications) 2002 that they've the discretion to ignore the lack of NINo if there's a good excuse, then we might be able to challenge the excercise of that discretion on Judicial review/Public law grounds.

We're going to proceed on this basis for the time being as long as we've got an ongoing appeal to pursue.