When the 2006 I(EEA) regs came into force DWP and certain tribunal chairs were questioning whether the regas were properly enacted.

We've a case decided June 2006, where under the old regs there's a case, but under the new regs they're stuffed so I need to pin down why the concerns were raised and when the new regs can be taken as coming into force.


Any ideas would be much appreciated.

That would be a surprising result as the new Directive is enacted to strengthen rights of residence (see preamble).

Both the directive and the new regs came into force from 30 April 2006.

One issue is whether UK regs properly transpose the other family member stuff in the Directive (ie Art 3(2) compared with Reg 8- see my post on recent CA decision).

What are the facts in your case? (from a nosy point of view)

In a nutshell, it's a case that'd benefit from Comm'r Rowlands' decision that IS claimants can be workseekers under the old regs... 3182/2005 I think it was

Cl had done some work, don't know how much off the top of mi head.
Usual tale of JC+ telling 'em to claim IS instead of JSa and all kaput.

I'll have to check the decision date... Certainly the sub refers to the 2000 regs.

Fair to say it's not one if mine but one I stumbled acroos chatting to a colleague yesterday and thought I'd have a sniff.

Doomed! Decision June '06. Claim 16th April...
Bad Luck or what?

I'm not convinced that the difference between the old and ew Imm(EEA) regs is so significant. There was a discussion about the caselaw and the new wording on here before http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=3377&mesg_id=3377&listing_type=search. I reckon it's at least worth having a go.

Fri 08-Feb-08 01:29 PM by Martin_Williams

Dan:

The issue is not with the I(EEA) Regs 06 and the Directive. Rather it is about the specific exclusion for IS purposes about a workseeker being a sufficient right to reside for entitlement to that benefit (ie Reg 21AA (2) and (3)(b) or (d)).

In Collins the ECJ confirmed that a person who was a workseeker could not take advantage of the equal treatment provision in Art 7 of Reg 1612/68 (which is still in force). However, when the R to R test was introduced into social security law in 2004 the UK did not legislate to exclude a person whose only R to R was on that basis from entitlement and therefore you had a situation where until the UK did that (which it did with the above mentioned amendment to the definition of Person from Abroad) this was a sufficient right to reside for benefit purposes.

The issue that is still outstanding (and which I think a claimant could win on) is whether someone who has been an actual worker and then wishes to retain that status whilst unemployed can do so through a claim to IS as opposed to JSA. I do not read Reg 21AA(3)(b) or (d) as excluding a person who retains the status of worker through being unemployed and having registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office from entitlement to IS.