Could someone please clarify - do arguments for a workseeker having R2R but claiming IS because they have been wrongly advised to by Jobcentre Plus ( eg as single parent) only work if the workseeker is a former worker?

Thanks!

On my reading it's the other way round. Although I'd argue that a claim for IS is "duly registered unemployment" I doubt it'll go far.

Someone continuing to be treated as a worker, i.e. havign already worked needs to be "duly registered..." which most read as claiming JSA, someone who's not worked simply needs to be seeking genuine and effective work with, after 6 months, evidence that they have a reasonable chance of being engaged.

The issue regarding when some one who is claiming IS and whether s/he can be deemed to be " seeking work" was considered in CIS/3314/2006 ( jointkly heard with CIS/3315/20055) . Its is avilable on Rightsnet, and also, CIS/519/2007 by Mr. Deputy Commissioner Robin C A White.

The latter is far more explicit in the binding side of the decision. The decision in positive. It is not avilabble on the net, as I do not think it has been published. I have a copy. If you need it, give me your fax and I will forward it.

Hi Essi - my fax is 020 8316 7903. This is a claim post 2006 Regs - does it make a difference?

Thanks

Carlos

In my view, yes, because of the express wording of 2004/38, Article 7 para 3(bO; "he is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment aftr having been employed for more than one year and has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office". Similar wording in para (c) for people who have been working less than a year.

Hi.

CIS/4144/2007 deals with exactly this point.

Commissioner Jacobs says he is making a decison in another case about someone who was a worker and then claims IS as job seeker post April 2006.

Apart from that, he says that where someone was on JSA and then advised to claim IS, they should appeal decision to stop JSA (as a late appeal if necessary) and that the tribunal could look at decison to refuse IS and decision to terminate JSA at same time.

He also says that, where there was no JSA claim previously and the person was not a worker, they are not going to be entitled to IS under post April 2006 regs, but the fact that they were told to claim IS rather than JSA might give rise to a claim for compensation.

I've currently got a case like the latter where I'm making a big claim for compensation from the DWP. I'm asking them to compensate for the JSA the claimant didn't get and also the HB and CTC they lost because of not having the right to reside as workseeker claiming JSA. I'll let you know what happens.

Thank you for the replies. I agree CIS 4144 2007 may be the way to go here.

Just to explain the facts of this case - client is Dutch, came to UK and worked 1992 to 1995. Then stopped work and lived with partner. On IS with partner ( I presume as partner ill ) from 2001 to 2003.

Returned to Holland in 2003. Came back to UK in March 2006 as a SP - since then has been on JSA. Went to Jobcentre Plus in September 2007 for advice as stressed out and finding childcare a problem. They told her to claim IS as a SP. Decision took 2 months then refused on R2R.

Whilst she was waiting for decision she had to continue looking for work as her CTC and HB were cancelled following the withdrawal of her JSA claim - so she was a workseeker but claiming IS.

I didn't think I could run an argument on retention of worker status in this case, hence my query about workseekers claiming IS and not former workers who are registered for employment.

So I think all I have is the issue of informed consent when withdrawing her JSA claim ( as in CIS 4144 2007 ) plus compensation claim - or is there another argument under either the directive or the 3006 Regs?

Thanks!

Oops I meant 2006 Regs of course - though in another millenium who knows....