Wed 10-Mar-10 12:15 PM by ros.white
hi.
i'm not sure that 'looking after' is the same as 'caring' but for short term. i think if 'caring' was meant, the heading of para 3 of schedule 1B would say 'temporarily caring for' not 'temporarily looking after'.
also see CIS/4312/2007 - ' “Looking After”
12. The tribunal accepted that the claimant cooked special food for her husband (although it made the unlikely finding that he was “fully” able to cook for himself without taking account of periods of fatigue or those when he would be in need of or undergoing or recovering from dialysis), washed his clothes, got his medicines from the pharmacist, and seemed to accept her evidence that she sometimes had to take him to the toilet, and that he slept a lot, and suffered from nausea and vomiting.
13. In the submission of 14th March 2008 to the Commissioner, the Secretary of State stated that: “It is my submission that the question for determination is not whether the claimant is looking after her husband, I submit there is no doubt she is …” (paragraph 8 on page 56). I agree. The tribunal’s conclusion that she was not looking after her husband was unreasonable on the facts that it had found and in the circumstances of this case.'
i think this makes it clear that is a question of fact in each case and so depends on level of input your client has into 'looking after' partner. if s/he's there a lot and does a lot for him/her then i would think it was strongly arguable.
|