any one aware of any HB commissioners decisions following the 'Hoceknjos' and 'Stec' case's concerning shared care?

my client is a single man with shared car of his son (50%). the mother claims CB
I am appealling in order to get child allowance and family premium included in his HB/CTB


thanks
Jim Cook

There is at least one HB/CTB case currently with Cmmrs - not yet released in the public domain (at least to my knowledge).

There was a small article in G1/2007 (page 7; point 42):
www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/news/newsletter/bulletins/2007/g1-2007.pdf

I am also interested in any cases on shared care as I have just appealed a child tax credit case to the Commissioners where there is shared care of 3 children. Mother gets 2 child benefits and all CTC, while father gets 1 child benefit. She has children for about 4 days and he has them for 3 . They are both receiving income support.

I am a little worried about eventual outcome if discrimination etc accepted, in case eventual result is that division of TC reduces entitlement for majority carer. While Hockenjos allowed child additions for both carers, this would not necessarily be the outcome for other benefits/tax credits. However, the current situation is intolerable for some minority carers.

Thanks for posting the link Kevin D - I didn't know of this case. Does anybody know the outcome or who is taking that case? - the report is from January. Has anybody got any others going?

This is an interesting area but I'm a little puzzled. The link that Kevin provides states that the Secretary of State states that HB/CTB are not covered by EC Directive 79/9 (which was the fundamental issue in Hockenjos).

The reason why the ruling only applied to JSA and not IS was that IS was deemed not to be a benefit which provided protection against sickness, invalidity, old age, accidents at work, occupational diseases or unemployment (article 3 of the Directive). Similarly I find it difficult to see how HB/CTB can be classed as such either.

I dont think that CTC would be covered by the Directive either. There was a decision years ago that Family Credit wasn't covered as it was classified as a Family Benefit.

The argument for CTC, and I assume for HB/CTB, is not under the Directive. It uses similar arguments to those used and accepted in Hockenjos but taken under Human Rights Act - Article 1 Protocol I and Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention. It is that 'substantial minority carers' suffer indirect gender discrimination as they are most likely to be men.

Tony

Forgot to comment on "Derbyshire's" reference to Article 1 & Protocol I and Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention.

Just to be clear, my in-depth knowledge of the HRA is very limited.

But, although Stec appears to bring HB/CTB within the meaning of "possession", am I right in thinking that it has no effect until / unless a formal legal challenge is successfully brought within the English/Welsh judicial system?

If I've misunderstood, I'll be quite happy for someone to say so.

If memory serves me right then decisions of the ECHR are not binding on British courts. However, the courts must have regard to ECHR case law when reaching their decisions and it would be unusual if decisions of the British courts did not eventually begin to mirror the decisions of the ECHR.

does anyone know the outcome of this case?, or the case number?, - I have a tribunal soon regarding HB and shared care and would like to get an adjournment pending the outcome of this case.

Sorry, I don't know the reference. Also, I've not noticed any HB/CTB CD covering this issue.

If anyone knows differently, I'd also very much like to know what the outcome was.

As for asking for an adjournment, I do have knowledge of a LA that relied on the legal reference at Tribunal just last month and there was no adjournment. Tribunal found for the LA.

Regards

HI, do you know why the tribunal found for the LA?, and is the claimant taking it further, can I talk to you about this - my number is 07969 991192
thanks, Jim

Sorry Jim, but I didn't have direct involvement in the case so my info is limited. In summary, the info I received is that the Tribunal accepted Hockenjos didn't apply as HB/CTB didn't fall within the EU directive cited above.

I don't know if it is being appealed to Cmmrs and it's unlikely I will be kept further informed of the case.