Assumption of non-dependant deduction

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #22784

    I am looking at CH/2324/2003, where a claimant stated that a non-dependant in their household was not working. The authority then assumed the highest non-dependant deduction, and the Commissioner decided this was unlawful as there was no evidence of remunerative work.

    Does anybody know if this decision has been ‘countermanded’ by a subsequent decision, or does it still hold good?


    It’s still good law, but needs to be read alongside two others where the circumstances were not dissimilar: CH/0163/2003 and CH/0454/2005. These three cases need to be very carefully distinguished. The apportionment of blame in non-dep cases depends very much on who knew what and when. For example:

    – did the Council already know that a teenager had become a non-dep before the age of 18? If so, shouldn’t the Council have known there was lilely to be a deduction from 18 onwards?
    – if a 16 or 17 year-old non-dep starts work, the claimant should tell the Council about this even though it won’t affect the non-dep deduction until the non-dep is 18
    – if there is no reason to think that a rising 18 year old has already become a non-dep, it’s a bit hasty to slap on a non-dep charge just because they have reached 18: chances are they are still at school

    And so on. All very tricky

    Incidentally, the Commissioner is wrong about the effect of D&A Reg 18(3)(b) in this case. For the proper approach to out of time revisions, see CH/3009/2002 and the Westminster v Beltekian case (both on this site).

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.