Mum and dad split up, dad was in receipt of the CB and has apparently not relinquished it, while the child lives with mum. Mum claimed IS as a lone parent but was refused as the CB is still in payment to another person. She has claimed CB. Is she blocked from claiming IS as a lone parent until she gets the CB, because the regs make receipt of CB the test of responsibility for the child? Seems unreasonable because it means she has no financial support for herself until the competing CB claims are resolved, which could be weeks.

Completely unreasonable but not uncommon. Only leeway we can see is that if payment of CHB were suspended pending a final decision then 15(2), IS Regs would apply (since no-one is in receipt of CHB) to treat as responsible the person with whom the child normally lives, at which point IS entitlement could begin. I understand, but have no source, that CHB is often suspended when competing claims are made, after the initial 3 weeks which are allowed for the existing claimant.

Richard Atkinson

That situation has always annoyed me. The only other avenue apart from that suggested by Richard is if the CB was claimed no later than 10 days after the claim for IS was made then if a further claim was made for IS within 3 months of the award of CB then IS can be backdated to the date that the CB is awarded from (reg 6(16)-(18), Claims and Payments Regs). See paragraph 22 for definitions of “relevant benefit” and “qualifying Benefit”.

But she can claim CTC without waiting (or is he getting that as well?). TCO approach is (so I was told by their advisers helpline) that it goes to the person who has responsibility for the child. They look at whether that person is getting CB but it is not the sole determining factor. I believe there is nothing in their regs. saying CB has to be being paid to whoever gets CTC.

Yes- no reason why she can't claim CTC. Re the IS issue- last time I had a client in that position we requested a special payment for the period between IS being claimed (and refused) and CB going into payment (after which IS was awarded) on the basis that client had been misadvised by the DWP (who should have advised client to claim JSA rather than IS). It worked, so might be worth a try in your case.