Terms & Conditions

[barryb]

I have a case where a Romanian couple have been claiming HB/CTS for years on the basis that the claimant is working and her partner is getting PIP, while they have had non deps who have worked. He had always declared PIP mobility but searchlight checks always showed that he was also entitled to PIP Living as well so we have assessed him with both. That meant an enhanced disability premium and no non dep deductions.

However, we have now discovered that while searchlight correctly shows he is entitled to PIP living DWP have never paid it to him because he is “receiving a foreign benefit”. Has anyone come across this? The couple have not provided any more information as to what this “foreign benefit” might be so we are in the position of having to contemplate cancelling their claim back to 2018.

The only thing I can think of is that he is receiving the Romanian equivalent of PIP living and so DWP don’t want to pay it. I suppose that might account for why they are happy to pay him PIP mobility.

[Peter Barker]

This is because of the EU co-ordination regulation 883/2004. It still applies to anyone who was already within its scope before Brexit.

PIP(dl) and PIP(m) are different categories of benefit. PIP(m) is a “special non-contributory benefit” which is always the responsibility of the state of residence, whereas PIP(dl) is a sickness benefit. If a person receives a pension from a member state, that same state is responsible for sickness benefits including PIP(dl). So I would guess your claimant has some kind of long term pension from Romania, which means that he is eligible for any Romanian sickness benefits in place of PIP(dl). Whether he actually gets such a benefit, or whether it even exists, I don’t know. It is the Romanian pension that prevents him from getting PIP(dl), not any PIP equivalent that he gets alongside the pension.

If he is getting something analogous to PIP(dl) from Romania, Article 5 of Reg 883/2004 says:

“where, under the legislation of the competent Member State, the receipt of social security benefits and other income has certain legal effects, the relevant provisions of that legislation shall also apply to the receipt of equivalent benefits acquired under the legislation of another Member State or to income acquired in another Member State”

HB itself is not within the scope of the coordination rules, but I think it could be argued that Article 5 applies to all legal effects, not just legal effects on benefits covered by that regulation. Which would mean you treat the Romanian benefit as if it were PIP(dl) for HB purposes. But that’s only if he is getting it in the first place.

[barryb]

Thanks very much for that Peter. The person is 64 years old so has not yet attained state pension age for Romania which is 65. Do you mean this could apply if they are receiving a Romanian private pension?

[Peter Barker]

A long term invalidity pension would have the same effect

[barryb]

so the equivalent of ESA? The issue we have is if we can treat him as getting PIP living because he is either getting the Romanian equivalent or should be then that is great. However, if he is prevented from receiving PIP living because he is getting the Romanian equivalent of ESA how do we know if we should treat this as ESA (ir) or ESA (c). I am guessing ESA (c) as partner is working but i don’t know.

[Peter Barker]

If his partner is working in another country I very much doubt that it is analogous to ESA(ir), so I would say it’s probably just income.

What you need to establish here is:

– (1) Just confirm that he has some kind of long term invalidity pension from Romania, and
– (2) If that is indeed the case, does he also get a second benefit or supplement of some kind that is analogous to PIP(dl), which he needs if they are to avoid non-dep deductions

(1) is what makes Romania the competent state for benefits like PIP(dl), (2) is whatever he qualifies for of that nature. he needs (2) to avoid NDDs, while (1) is income for HB purposes.

[Peter Barker]

Looks like there is an option to retire early and take a reduced pension if you have paid sufficient contributions, so maybe he did that?

[Author]

Posts