Need for a NINO re Wilson case.

My client has indefinite leave to remain and is in receipt of IS but on a recent claim for Housing Benefit she declared her partner who does not have leave to remain. He is a person subject to detention and MUST NOT work in this country. He has no recourse to public funds. He applied for a NINO in the past and was refused.

Her housing benefit entitlement would be no greater as a couple than it would be as a single person. However following the Wilson decision the local authority are refusing to pay because her partner has no National Insurance number.

In the Wilson decision it states " The Sec of state has made it clear that a National Insurance number can be applied for, and will be allocated, irrespective of any intention to work and without any conflict with a visa condition prohibiting a person from working in this country.

I have today spoken to immigration who were less than helpful and to the National Insurance section. I have been advised that the person from abroad should insist on an interview in respect of getting a NINO. However he will be refused because (a) he is not seeking work (b) he is not in employment and (c) he is not in receipt of a benefit. In addition his immigration status is such that he is prohibited from working.

As well as refusing benefit the LA have also generated an overpayment from the date of Wilson.

HELP!!! Is it a breach of my clients human rights not to pay her benefit to which she is entitled. The only other course I can see is to say that they are no longer partners. ANY suggestions gratefully received.

If he cannot be issued with a NINO is there any sort of challenge to be made against the Court of Appeal decsion given the statement in that decision by the Sec of State?

If your clients partner has applied for a NINO and been refused for no good reason, I would appeal the HB decision that depends on it and I would cite a decison of Mr Commmisioenr Jacobs CIS/0345/2003 where he wrote:

"The tribunal will find helpful this passage from the Secretary of State’s written observations to the Commissioner. Those observations were written by an officer from the Adjudication and Constitutional Issues Branch in Leeds. The officer wrote:
‘It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State’s representatives in the claimant’s local social security office will in the meantime reconsider its refusal to provide to the tribunal the evidence on which its refusal of the claimant’s claim under section 1(1B) of the Social Security Act 1998 . If not, the new tribunal will, in my submission, be at liberty firstly to direct the Secretary of State to produce the evidence in question and secondly, in the event of a refusal to comply with that direction, to consider whether the Secretary of State is thereby seeking to shelter from scrutiny an indefensible decision.’"

I think the Commissioners decision will give a Tribunal authority to overturn any benefit decison that rests on a refusal of a NINO without any good reason

Doesn't the new statutory instrument (restrictions on employment) make getting a nino more difficult now?
Or am I not reading it correctly.

The explanatory note makes it clear that the SI is aimed at those who apply for a NINO in order to work. In theory at least it should not affect those who require a NINO because their partner is claiming HB.

In practice it could be another matter, that is why I think Mr Commissioner Jacobs decision (when used along with Wilson) will be so valuable