A couple where is one not subject to Immigration control(Limited leave with no recourse to public funds) but the other one is, both are not working.

The client who is not subject to immigration control is pregnant and is due in 2 weeks.

They have just returned back from abroad.

Can she claim IS, HB, CTB and CTC? or what can she claim which will not affect her husbands immigration rules?

Thanks

A bit confused and short of info I think....

How does having limited leave and no recourse to public funds make you NOT subject to immigration control?

If one member of a couple is not subject immigration control then that person is eligible for benefit (they have to be the claimant). They may only get the single rate of IS but HB/CTB should be assessed on the basis of them being a couple.

When you say they have "returned", does that mean they lived in the UK before, and what nationality are they?

I should add that if a person is not subject to immigration control then there may be issues around habitual residence and right to reside which would affect entitlement to benefit. This is where the issues of whether they have lived here before and what nationality they are could be relevant.

Thanks Andy
It is very complicated even to explain when it comes to immigration and benefit, never mind to give advice

The story is a UK Citizen married to a foreign national who's Visa is initially for 2 years and he will be able to get indefinite leave to remain after that. Both are not working at the moment, Wife(UK Citizen)is pregnant and due in 2 weeks, he can not claim benefit because of the terms and conditions of his Visa (No recourse to public funds).


She can claim full housing benefit however unlike income support and income based JSA, housing benefit and CTB are paid at a couple rate.

This means that if one member of the couple has limited leave to remain subject to 'No Recourse to Public Funds' condition.

My worry is that the claim could result in additional public funds being claimed.

Hope this has explained the case briefly

I am just looking for a second opinion on this before i advice my client not to apply for HB and CTB


Thanks

The issue of HB/CTB being paid at a couple rate only arises if the UK citizen does not qualify for IS. If she gets IS she is passported onto maximum HB/CTB (i.e. the whole of her liability for rent and CT -assuming no non-deps). There is no "single rate" or "couple rate" here, though some LA's in the past managed to contrive to pay a "single rate" by halving the rent and CT! This is now (hopefully) universally recognised as incorrect. Since no greater amount of HB/CTB gets awarded to the couple than the single person would have got the public funds issue does not arise.

If she does not get IS, then the LA would have to then make its own calculation of needs and resources. There is no provision for an LA to decide in these circumstances to treat the UK citizen as a single person, so it is then arguably the case that the person subject to immigration control is receiving public funds through being included in the claim and so more benefit gets awarded.

In practice, in my experience (I can put it no stronger than this), this has never caused any immigration problems. Perhaps others can back this up? Maybe that is because it is recognised that there is not the provision in HB/CTB regs to ignore the partner - I don't know.

I appreciate that this may not give enough certainty but as I say I am not aware of problems resulting from this.

If the woman in this case is entitled to IS,then the presence of her partner will not increase the amount of hb/ ctb that would have been paid - she would get full hb/ctb if she were single and the same as member of a couple.

The only problems with hb as an additional public fund come where someone is getting partial hb and the presence of the partner increases the assessment due to being assessed at the couple rate.

CTC is not a problem as the rules treat mixed status couples as if the partner subject to immigration control is not subject to that control.

Thanks Guys

This is just what I wanted to hear because I have already asked the client to come and see me to apply for what she is entitled to

Thanks again