Hi All,

we have a case where a claimant is in receipt of jsa ib and their partner is a person from abroad. we have to include the partner on the claim. However the DWP are paying jsa ib to the claimant as if he were a single person. This is inconsistent with our regs. Does anyone have any advise on what we should do?

You include the partner in the claim and all income and capital must be disregarded if JSA(IB) is in payment.

The applicable amount for JSA (IB) is the single person rate where a partner is a pfa and has no recourse to public funds.

The reduction in the applicable amount does not apply to HB/CTB. This is where the HB/CTB and JSA Regs part company

The difference has no practical effect where JSA (IB) is in payment, but it could if JSA (C) only was being paid. The applicable amount for HB/CTB is the couple rate and both parties income is taken into account

A related issue... we are having problems with the new regulations where the PFA partner must have an N.I. number before the UK spouse can claim HB, even when there is no difference in payment rate.... anyone else having problems ?

The partner does NOT have to have an NI number, all that is needed is that sufficient informstion has to be provided about the partner in order that an NI number can be issued.

In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wilson (2006), the Court of Appeal ruled that a claimant who claimed housing benefit in respect of his wife needed to meet the 'NINO' requirements of Section 1B of the Social Security Administration 1992 despite her having no recourse to public funds.

See the following rightsnet news stories -

Need for both members of a couple to supply a national insurance number when claiming benefit - New Court of Appeal judgment (July 03, 2006)

Need for both members of a couple to supply a national insurance number when claiming benefit - New HB guidance following Court of Appeal\'s judgment in \'Wilson\' (July 19, 2006)

Need for both members of a couple to supply a national insurance number when claiming benefit - New DWP guidance following Court of Appeal\'s judgment in \'Wilson\' (August 16, 2006).

However, as stainsby says, the effect of the Court's judgment is not that a claimant's partner, who is a person from abroad, must have a NINO number but that they have either applied for a NINO or given information to enable a NINO to be awarded.

Ken,

What happens in the case where the partner cannot apply for a NINO?

I have a case where the tenant has a Russian wife who had a indefinite leave to remain permit but no recourse to public funds for two years, but last week received her new permit allowing her indefinite leave to remain but the no recourse to public funds was removed from permit.
HB has refused to pay the claim, I have written to the DWP for an appointment to obtain a nino (so they will be able to claim from now). What about the period from when they moved in (mid aug 06) to when the HB kicks in. is this appealable?

They were receiving HB from their last Authority just using his Incap as income.

Your/any help would be appreciated

Carrie

The determination that a nino cant be issueda is theortically not appealable but any outcome benefit decision depending on it is appealble.

Have a look at the CIS/0345/2003

The fact that someone is barred from recourse to public funds does not mean that they cannot apply for an NI no. It is still arguable, it seems to me, even post Wilson, that where the non-PFA partner is on IS or JSA - so max HB is payable anyway - that the PFA being part of the claim does not constitute a claim on public funds, as no additional benefit is paid for them.

Incidently, Wilson was a case of mine at commissioner level.

Simon Ennals

Thinking ahead…

My clients, now having applied for a Nino should be able to get Housing Benefit. What do you recommend I do about the period from when they moved in (claim submitted, assessed, benefit granted, and then cancelled (No payment issued)).
Knowing how my authority, this will not be paid automatically.

I only ever see a small percentage of our tenants. I shudder to think how many local residents do NOT get their full entitlement!!

This appeared on hbinfo

"Claimant made a claim in August, partner is from Russia, she did not have a NINO and would not apply for one as it would affect her immigration status. We advised that HB could not be paid in these circumstances.
Partner has now applied for NINO as she has received her right to reside status. They have made a new claim for HB, and are requesting that we pay back to original form. We have turned down this request as she had no NINO and had not applied for one at the time. Their Housing Officer has advised them that this is incorrect and to appeal .

Can anyone advise me if they would pay from original claim or am I correct in refusing???"

I replied to it as below

"If you merely advised that HB would not be paid and did not make a formal decision with full appeal rights, then the new claim is simply an amendment to the earlier one, and as the S1(1A) requirement has been fullfilled you must pay from day 1

If you did make a formal decision, there is now no subsisting claim to amend, but there is always the possibility of backdating the current claim, or a late appeal or request for revision of the decison to refuse benefit. Thus there is still a sound basis for paying the original claim"

This raises the issue of couples where - for whatever income reason- HB WOULD increase by virtue of the PFA partner's inclusion in the claim. I have asked questions before about the risk of effect on immigration status in these cases - but nobody seems to know what to do about it. It seems so wrong to me that couples in this situation are forced either to claim HB and risk future problems ( eg refusal of leave to remain), or go without, or give up work and claim full HB to avoid the "public funds " issue.
Any thoughts?
Also, do you know what the effect of the new restrictive regs on allocation of NIno wil be ? Does this now mean someone can't apply for a NIno purely to claim benefits? (as was allowed under the DWP "SNAP" guidelines) ????
thanks

The expalantory note to the new Regs makes it clear that the amendment is only aimed at those who are applying for a nino because they are working.