Terms & Conditions

[anthony]

Do you think that a spouse visa having expired (just a few weeks ago), and no application in progress for residency, should affect things?

Normally when a partner has no NINO or recourse to public funds we would send a DCI1LA (DWP form applying for NINO) and warn them that it could impact on future immigration decisions. We would then pay up as normal and include the partner in the claim for income/applicable amount etc.

Anyway, do you think the expired visa has any bearing on whether we could or should send the DCI1LA?

Sorry if this has been done to death 🙂

[Anonymous]

Is this a change of circs on a live claim? If so, I don’t think you need to bother with a NINO just yet. This is exactly the sort of case I had in mind when I asked [url=https://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8091]this question [/url]a few days ago.

If I am right about that, just leave things as they were.

[anthony]

It’s a COC. Thanks for your link, you have convinced us.
This has only become an issue now as they have moved and the partner was previously undeclared.

It leads us on to another issue though, which is about her right to remain. As she doesn’t have this, (apparently the IND are looking to deport her)
-and she arrived less than 2 years ago, (she is Iranian) circular A9-2006 would seem to say that she fails the HRT.
This is complicated by her being the partner though. – could this impact on the claimants entitlement? – If not, would we include the partner in the calculation?

[Anonymous]

[quote:e4dd9b6cba]We would then pay up as normal[/quote:e4dd9b6cba]

If you were dealing with a new claim for a couple, or (as Peter proposes in his earlier post) a claim following a break in entitlement where the partner has joined the household at some point during the original award or during the break in entitlement, would it not be correct to refuse benefit until such time as the partner provides evidence of a NINO or that an application for a NINO has been made? If I have read [i:e4dd9b6cba]Wilson[/i:e4dd9b6cba] correctly, the issue of a DCI 1LA by the authority is not sufficient to meet legislative requirements for the payment of benefit.

[anthony]

[quote:b24c7dc6e2=”andy_u_i”][quote:b24c7dc6e2]We would then pay up as normal[/quote:b24c7dc6e2]

If you were dealing with a new claim for a couple, or (as Peter proposes in his earlier post) a claim following a break in entitlement where the partner has joined the household at some point during the original award or during the break in entitlement, would it not be correct to refuse benefit until such time as the partner provides evidence of a NINO or that an application for a NINO has been made? If I have read [i:b24c7dc6e2]Wilson[/i:b24c7dc6e2] correctly, the issue of a DCI 1LA by the authority is not sufficient to meet legislative requirements for the payment of benefit.[/quote:b24c7dc6e2]

My thinking was that as the applicant has supplied enough info about the partner to find or allocate a NINO, that the Social Security Admin act was satisfied. I will re-read Wilson, thanks.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel frustrated by the recent NINO and immigration stuff? I have been assessing HB for many years but these cases always have me scratching my head…

[Anonymous]

I have spoken to people from many different authorities over the past couple of months on our HBINFO courses, and most of them are taking that particular passage from Wilson with a pinch of salt.

Applying for a NINO is the last resort where the claimant’s partner cannot supply one and does not have one to be traced. The thing is, issuing a DCI1LA seems to be the quickest way to get the ball rolling and easily the best way of avoiding problems where the local DWP staff don’t want to issue a NINO – something that is far more lilely to happen if the partner strolls down to the office on their own initiative. It just seems unnecessarily complicated to say that the easiest way of getting a NINO does not satisfy s1(1A) & (1B).

Some Councils have designed their claim forms so that they are authorised to issue the DCI1LA on the claimant’s/partner’s behalf, and they regard that as an application for a NINO by the person concerned. Other Councils take the view that the partner has complied with subs (1B)(a) if the DCI1LA results in the issuing of a NINO in due course, so there is no need to worry about whether that process satisfies para (b).

Let us not forget that the key issue in the Wilson case was whether Mrs Wilson was required to satisfy subs (1B) at all – the manner in which she could do so was very much a secondary point.

There does seem to be a consensus that claims should only be refused if the partner is for some reason unwilling to cooperate with the process – for example, if they are summoned for an interview as a result of the DCI1LA being issued but then they don’t turn up.

[Anonymous]

I am representing a client at the moment who has a nino problem. He is originally from Greece. He is a worker and he has a NINO

His partner is from Nigeria and has applied for indefinite leave to remain as the spuse of an EU National. She does not work and has no NINO.

We tried to apply for a NINO bbbut as she is nto working, the IR insited that the application was made on the DC11(either LA or TC)

As the Revenue do have the discretion to dispense with the NINO requirement for TAX Credits, we have decided to let the LA do it.

I think Peter Barker is spot on re Wilson

[Author]

Posts