Reply To: How long is temporary?


Unusually, I don’t agree with Peter on this one. In CH4004 2004 someone who had no other place to live and lived with the claimant for over 2 months was found not to be “normally residing” with the claimant and therefore not a non-dependant. That case is different to the one being discussed here but none-the-less it breaks Peter’s “normally hanging around the place” principle.

I prefer to see 55(7)(a) as a ‘belt and braces’ provision. It’s hard to imagine a situation where someone can be treated as normally residing with the claimant but also having their normal home elsewhere at the same time. It’s kinda contradictory. I suspect that any nil deduction case because of 55(7)(a) is probably better covered by 3(1) in the first place.