I disagree jon for two reasons:
1. because it says claimant stops getting IS in the answer (so i am ignoring it)
2. because it is an increase in income (well might be if they have more income), I accept that they might be under 25 and now have nil income.
The policy intention is clear, this is another example of “bad drafting” linking the concession to the change in income or moving in is ludicrous. It should be linked to the fact that a deduction is now applicable or would have increased, in this way all scenarios would be covered and everyone would be happy. 💡
