Reply To: 2 AR
MarkI doubt I could point you to any regs you don’t already know. When the regs were drafted I don’t think that this question was given much thought. My view is that the answer to this question is no different for alternative maximum CTB (i.e. 2nd Adult rebate) than main CTB. Therefore, I contend that if the claimant is a pensioner the pensioner rules apply ( I think that the caveat in SI2003/325 Reg 12(2) is irrelevant here because main CTB would be worth more).
The problem though is the wording in Reg 12(1) of SI/2003/325. It says that the pensioner regs apply to “any person” who is a pensioner. When I queried with the DWP why they inferred that this meant claimants and partners only I was met with a rather terse “who else did you think it could apply to”. The answer to that question was of course “second adults or non-dependants” but I’d lost the will at that point to pursue it.
So I think the regs are rather confused. Lets assume that the second adult is a pensioner but the claimant isn’t. Which rules apply then? I don’t think there is a definitely correct answer to this question although I prefer the interpretation of taking the “any person” definition literally – i.e. the penisoner regs apply if either the claimant or second adult is a pensioner. Of course, this can get very messy – for example what if HB and 2AR were payable. Would you seriously apply the non-pensioner rules to the HB claim and the pensioner rules to the CTB claim? I suspect that no LA would want to do this and that the regulations did not intend to create this anomaly Neverthe less I am convinced that this possibility exists because of the wording in Regs 2(1) and 12(1).
I also think that if we refuse to accept that Reg 12(1) applies to second adults who are pensioners (even where the claimant is a non-pensioner) then we can’t apply the 25% reduction for PC recipients specified in Reg 27 of SI2003/325 – because the Pension Credit category is only added to the IS/JSA(IB) list for claims where Reg 12(1) applies!