Dear All,

I have a client who was refused JSA as he he does not have the right to reside. I am clear that I have a good argument to say client has the right to reside but want to be clear of test of habitual residence.

The DWP submission basically addresses the right to reside (in part) they have not addressed whether the client is actually habitually resident. They refer top Nessa and RIS6/96.

Client basically was in UK about 9 months before making a claim for JSA. He has been in hospital and is currently supported unbder the National Assistance Act.

I am aware of the case of Collins but given the lenght of time that has elapsed from entry to Uk and JSA claim should habitual residence be decided under the settle intention adn appreciable period critera or should the Collins (genuine connection with Uk employment market) be used?

Thanks

I think you will need to show 'settled intention' and 'appreciable period of residence'. It would be very odd if the tribunal wouldn't accept 9 months as being an adequate 'appreciable period'.

See CIS/4474/2003:

“19. What is an appreciable period depends on the circumstances of the particular case. But I agree with the Secretary of State that in the general run of cases the period will lie between one and three months. I would certainly require cogent reasons from a tribunal to support a decision that a significantly longer period was required.”

The reason why the DWP sub will not address the HRT is because you don't get to that test if do not have a right to reside.

If the client wins an appeal on right to reside then the HRT comes in to play and will be looked at.

David

thanks for all your thoughts.

Paul