Reply To: CL rec’s ESA(IR) and Thai wife (NRPF)

#287042
helevans
Participant

Hello – it may be the way I am reading Reg 8 but I am not so sure. So Reg 8 (a) treats a person that is liable to make payments of rent as being treated as making those payments for HB purposes. Reg 10 though would then strip the Thai partner of that because she is subject to immigration control and so is treated as not being liable to make payments, even though she is the liable person. Reg 8 (b) though treats the partner (your claimant) as being liable to make payments where they are the partner of the person listed in Reg 8 (a) but the person listed in Reg 8 (a) cannot be treated as such because of Reg 10 – I don’t know if I am overcomplicating this or whether it is is as simple as your claimant is the partner of the liable person and so as per 8 (b) he is treated as liable to make payments and therefore the HB continues as a change of address.

For your CTS – I’m assuming you’re an English authority – then it would fall under Regs 12 and 13 of your prescribed requirements, and as she is a person subject to immigration control then she cannot be included in the scheme and so cannot apply. There’s no provision to not include her as the partner though so she has to be included. We often caveat the decision letter to advise that if they have not already done so then they should seek the advice of CAB and/or immigration advisor regarding their situation on the claim and whether it would affect their position.

Is there any reason why your claimant isn’t listed on the agreement?