e2e training courses, low non-dependant charge

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #22233
    david kearney

    We have an increasing number of young people on e2e training courses organised by connexions, as we have never treated these as iro training allowance as below we have been making low non-dependant charges, which is causing hardship and increasing dhp claims, are other authorities treating these courses in the same way?

    (7) No deduction shall be made in respect of a non-dependant if—
    (b) he is in receipt of a training allowance paid in connection with a Youth Training Scheme established under section 2 of the 1973 Act or section 2 of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990(a); or


    e2e stands for “Entry to Employment”. According to DWP HB/CTB Circular A6/2006 (para 15) this scheme was established under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. This is “The 1973 Act” as referred to in HB Reg 74(7)(b) (and defined in HB Reg 2(1)). In my experience, almost all of these types of schemes (we all know there are dozens of different flavours) are set up under the 1973 Act.

    So this must mean that non dependants on the e2e programme should have no deduction made for them. This means, of course, that you should do anytime revisions on all your cases for official error and refund the deductions.

    But there is another thing for you to consider – as of 10th April 2006 some people on e2e programmes should be counted as dependants (not non-dependants). This is because e2e counts as “approved training” for the purposes of the new Child Benefit Regulations (see Reg 1(3) of SI2006/223) and the amendments to HB Reg 19 as made by SI2006/718.

    The way this works is that any 16, 17 or 18 year old on an e2e course should certainly be classed as a dependant from 10th April 2006 onwards. Any 19 old should too provided that they reached 19 on or after 10th April 2006 (tough I know but that’s the rule). As soon as they reach 20 they become non dependants with a nil deduction (assuming they’re still on the e2e programme).

    Andy Thurman

    I definitely agree re no non-dep deductions and amending affected claims but I’m not sure about your slant on determining dependents.

    Certainly, the changes of 10 April 2006 allow an extension in circs where Child Benefit can remain in payment, but it is surely receipt of this that determines dependent or non-dependent status.

    If a 16 year old leaves school & starts work, CHB ceases & they become a non-dep (no deds as U18). As far as I am aware, that young person could then, at 18 say, end up on one of these courses but their parents would not be able to re-claim CHB & they would continue to be a non-dep.

    So, the most I would say is that a 17/18/19 yr old on one of these courses could be either & worth checking CHB.

    Please tell me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick! 🙄 😕

    david kearney

    many thanks for your responses, that’ll do me, now we’ve just got to find them all.


    Andy – you’re right – I was envisaging a smooth transition from leaving school to registering with Connexions and then starting an e2e programme. It’s not always like that and it’s only in certain circumstances that it’s possible to have a gap between education and training and still count as a “Qualifying young person” (QYP). The only two I know of are:

    a) 16/17 year olds who are in the child benefit extension period. In these cases the person could leave school and register with connexions although not yet be enrolled on any particular programme. As long as they actually started the e2e programme before the 20 week extension period was up they would continue to count as a QYP once they had.

    b) When the interruption is caused by illness or diability (for gaps of up to 6 months).

    But it is correct to say that once you’ve reached the terminal date without being classed as a QYP through another route your CHB does end and cannot be reclaimed after a gap.

    In practice, just looking at whether CHB is in payment is the best way to determine whether someone is a dependant for HB purposes or not. But the HB regs don’t actually tell us to do this except in cases where a child spends equal time in 2 households (HB reg 20). Instead, we’re expected to determine for ourselves whether someone is a “child”(pretty easy – it’s just someone under 16) or a “QYP” (for which we might have to do more than see whether Child Benefit is in payment). In practice, it would be a rare case indeed where the LA deems someone to be a QYP but where Child Benefit is not in payment – but it can happen – especially where the QYP is estranged from their parents and might count as an eligible student (under the new HB Reg 56(2)(h)(ii)). But it can happen too in other circumstances, e.g:

    * Because the QYP is in remunerative work (no CHB but they are still a QYP and therefore a dependant for HB purposes) [CHB 2006 Regs, Reg 7(3)]

    * Because the QYP gets Inapacity Benefit or Tax Credits in their own right [CHB 2006 Regs, Reg 8(2)]

    There are other possibilities too.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.