Definition of a Young Person

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31797
    John Boxall
    Participant

    I am writing a submission.

    Basically claimants 17 year old daughter leaves college so goes from a dep to a non dep. This creates an overpayment which we are seeking to recover.

    So far so good.

    However I am trying to find the legal justification for this decision. Reg 2 says that a Young Person is defined in Reg 19.

    Reg 19 says that a YP is defined in S142 of ‘The Act’ – The 1992 SSCBA defines a child but not a ‘Young Person’ The text from Legislation.gov.uk reads

    [quote:73e882d3fc]142Meaning of “child”
    (1)For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person shall be treated as a child for any week in which—
    (a)he is under the age of 16; or
    (b)he is under the age of 18 and not receiving full-time education and prescribed conditions are satisfied in relation to him; or
    (c)he is under the age of 19 and receiving full-time education either by attendance at a recognised educational establishment or, if the education is recognised by the Secretary of State, elsewhere.[/quote:73e882d3fc]

    Now there is nothing about ‘prescribed conditions’ – at the moment we have treated them as a dependant up to the date Child Benefit ended.

    The claimant is saying that they should be a dependant up to their 18th Birthday, but I am having difficulty finding the reason in the legislation as to why they should not be a dependant.

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #88933
    Anonymous
    Guest

    “Qualifying Young Person is defined in S142(2)

    (2) In this Part of this Act “qualifying young person” means a person, other than a child, who–
    (a) has not attained such age (greater than 16) as is prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury, and
    (b) satisfies conditions so prescribed.]

    The Act has been amended several times and I recommend that you use the Blue Volumes on the DWP website, (but sometimes even the Blue Volumes are not 100% up to date.)

    The prescribed conditons are in Regulations 2-8 of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/223.

    By the way, the claimant here might have been entitled to child benefit in the extensdion period under Reg 5 of CHB Regs for up to 20 weeks

    #88934
    John Boxall
    Participant

    Ah, it becomes clearer.

    Looks like S142 has been revised but I didnt manage to get the right version…………..

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #88935
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The only information you need from clts in this situation is “when did CHB finish?”. From that point on (or is it the following Monday!) they are no longer a young person. It would be [b:bf76da2076]very useful indeed [/b:bf76da2076]if we could see CHB information on CIS

    #88936
    John Boxall
    Participant

    Trouble is of course they didnt respond to a request to provide the date CHB ended & TTS would not give as a firm enough direction to make them respond

    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

    Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

    #123211
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    My brain’s turning to mush!! 🙁

    Is an apprentice, started at 16 and still ongoing, a dependant or non-dependant? No CTC or CHB in payment but this is mainly because the claimant has not bothered.

    #123219
    d-stainsby
    Participant

    Looks like he could be undertaking approved training as defined by Reg 1(3) of the CHB Regs

    “approved training” means arrangements made by the Government—
    (a) in relation to England, known as “Entry to Employment” or “Programme Led Pathways”;
    (b) in relation to Wales, known as “Skillbuild”, “Skillbuild+” or “Foundation Modern
    Apprenticeships”;
    (c) in relation to Scotland, known as “Get Ready for Work”, “Skillseekers” or “Modern
    Apprenticeships”; or
    (d) in relation to Northern Ireland, known as “Access” or “Jobskills Traineeships”;
    “arrangements made by the Government” means arrangements—
    (a) in relation to England and Wales, made by the Secretary of State under section 2 of the
    Employment and Training Act 1973(d);
    (b) in relation to Scotland, made—
    (i) by the Scottish Ministers under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act
    1973(e);
    (ii) by Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise under section 2 of the
    Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990(f); or
    (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, made by the Department for Employment and Learning
    under section 1 of the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 195

    If he is undertaking approved training, he is a dependant not a non dependant

    #123224
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    That’s exactly what I thought but HMRC think otherwise……. :O CTC was stopped whilst the QYP was still an apprentice and we have followed suit. J)

    #123225
    d-stainsby
    Participant

    On the face of it HMRC are wrong and you were wrong to follow suit See CH/2812/2008 where Judge Turnbull held:

    The Claimant’s appeal against the decision of Brent Council made on 13 September 2007 is allowed and that decision is set aside. The Claimant’s award of housing benefit did not fall to be reduced with effect from 21 August 2006 by reason of the cessation of his award of child benefit in respect of Vanita, because Vanita was still engaged in full-time non-advanced education.

    #123226
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Thank you!

    Reading other posts, on apprentices, didn’t help me mushy head……could have sworn I read some posts that declared that apprentices, in similar circumstances, are non-deps. :~

    #123236
    d-stainsby
    Participant

    It depends on the apprenticeship. If the apprenticeship is one that arises from paid employment, the person is a non dep, but if the apprenticeship is one that is prescribed in the definition of approved training in CHB Reg 1(3), that person is a qualifying young person and therefore a dependant

    #123434
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Cheers, thanks for that. 🙂

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.