Franchise Supervisor, Roehampton CAB Member since 13th Mar 2007
IS claim and residency conditions Wed 04-Jun-08 01:55 PM
Client is from Guyana and came to the United Kingdom in 1962 with his parents he has been in the United Kingdom since that time. Anyway it seems that he is unsure of his own status and has lost his passport he has previously claimed benefits without a problem. He was on JSA until December 2007 when he developed chronic and severe breathing problems he claims IB and was awarded credits but IS will not pay and to date have not made a payment as they say he cannot establish if he meets the residency conditions.
I have requested an interim payment on basis that it is likley he will be entitled no firm decision on this as yet. A colleague has contacted the Home Office for them to comment. I don’t know if I am missing anything and if anyone has any ideas AT ALL then please share them.
Have complained to IS section manager as they have thus far refused to make a decision so client cannot appeal they will also not accept that he had benefit before and this by analogy means he remains entitled because it is ‘clear’ that previous awards where mistaken. Sounds like they don’t like my client
Solicitor, Askews Solicitors, Thornaby, Stockton on Tees Member since 17th May 2005
RE: IS claim and residency conditions Wed 04-Jun-08 02:09 PM
The DWP keep a record of all benefits received by anyone; write and ask them (with his authority of course) for a full list of all benefits he has ever received. his local office should have this info.
welfare rights adviser, saltley & nechells law centre birmingham Member since 21st Jan 2004
RE: IS claim and residency conditions Fri 06-Jun-08 01:49 PM
you don't mention whether the lost passport was a british passport - should i assume that he hasn't left the country since entering in the 60s? there's no doubt that he is habitually resident, and he does not appear to be a person subject to immigration control under section 115 of the I & A act. see R(IS) 6/96 - the secretary of state should show that he is not hab res or does not have right to reside, rather than clmt to show that he is.