I've had an enquiry about a 16 year old young woman in relevant education cohabiting with a 20 year old boyfriend who is working on minimum wage.

As far as I can see there is nothing to prevent him being "responsible for" her and thus being able to claim WTC and CTC.
Does anyone know of any case law to confirm or rebut this, please?

Hi Gerry

It looks absolutely spot on to me - plus a claim for Child Benefit! I can't see any possible reason why it wouldn't work. Keep us posted!

Simon

PS I'm no longer at French & Co, but on my own again as Essential Rights!

Simon

Don't think you can get Child Benefit. You can't claim CB for any young person who is married or cohabiting and since she is cohabiting with the potential claimant...

Although can't see anything explicit wrong with the CTC although only had a quick look into that. Only thing I can think of is that they would be treated as a joint claim couple and I don't see how you can be both a dependent and claimant at the same time.

Thanks Andy. My thinking, and my argument if it becomes necessary, is this.

TCA s3 defines an unmarried couple as "a man and a woman living together" etc. TCA s8 defines a child as someone who has not reached the age of sixteen, but provides for regulations to allow someone who has reached that age to remain a child for a period (in practice, while still at school). There is no definition of a woman.

Therefore, since she is by definition a child she cannot be a woman for the purposes of the Act; and if she is not a woman they are not an unmarried couple. It would follow that if she lives with him and he is maintaining her he is "responsible for" her and therefore eligible for WTC as well as CTC. Wouldn't it?

A similar argument works, I think, if she remains in education after she is 17 and a "qualifying young person".

Well best of luck with that one. I have to say I'm not entirely convinced myself although it is very clever. The problem as I see it is that your argument can be turned around on you ie if she is a woman as part of a couple she cannot be a child. I appreciate that 'woman' is not defined but she would certainly come under the ordinary English use of the word, which is the usual fallback in those situations. I think a tribunal would look at the reality of the situation and conclude that, as they have a 'husband and wife'type relationship (unless you have a good argument against that) then she is part of a couple. Its difficult because conceiveably she could count as either, so I think someone would be faced with the challenge of deciding which.

However, no harm in trying, although filling in the TC claim form may be difficult as it asks about your 'partner'. Also, if he claims JSA as a single person in the interim and the TC claim ultimately fails then I'm not sure where that leaves them. Let us know how it goes.

What about other benefits - HB/CTB, etc...?

If it's as 50/50 as all that, I would work out which scenario would your clients better off and argue that side of the coin.

However, for me (and for most means-tested benefits) its the child benefit that is the key, and reg 12 CB(Gen) regs says that CB is not payable in these circumstances.