Flowcharts for Persons From Abroad

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #21239

    Hello all,

    I have been asked to look at PFAs by my bosses, and i have made up some flowcharts to try and help our staff here.

    I wonder if any of you can have a look at them and let me know if they are at least along the right lines…….or where they are going wrong etc

    I may have totally misunderstood all the rules though- so they may well be absolute rubbish!!!!

    But if anyone has a minute to look them over i would appreciate any feed-back.







    Just had a quick glance.

    Rest of the World:

    If they are in receipt of IS, JSA(IB) or GPC you will still need to verifiy their immigration status by viewing passport / Home Office docs etc.

    The two boxes at the bottom of the page appear to be the wrong way around.


    [i:3bdf053ee1]Are they self-sufficient and not an unreasonable burden on the state[/i:3bdf053ee1] [u:3bdf053ee1]and[/u:3bdf053ee1] have comprehensive medical insurance (see part 51 A9/2006).

    Darren W

    Arenton, do you have any problems with me using these as a starting point for my PFA training notes?


    Hello Darren W,

    I would have no objection- but i’d wait to see what comments other posters might have first!!!

    I’m pretty sure these won’t be finnished versions!


    Steve’s response is a new one on me. Have I missed something? These are passporting benefits unless there is reason to believe that they have been incorrectly awarded (because immigration status hasn’t been considered when it should have been, for example).


    Could you please explain when the Immigration Status Test needs to be applied. Perhaps an additional flowchart may explain it.




    Neil Adamson

    The course I attended advised that JSA(IB) or IS entitlement does not exempt claimant from immigration control and even though the qualifying conditions are the same for all means tested benefits we should still check?


    If you take a strict legalistic approach, receipt of IS/JSA(ib)/PC does not have a “passporting” effect for immigration control purposes. There is no such provision in s115 of the I&A Act, there is none in the 2000 SS(I&A)CA Regs either. The only “passporting” effects are those provided for in the HB Regs: habitual residence and means testing. But not immigration control. Now, if Decision Makers in different jurisdictions do their job correctly it ought to be impossible to achieve a situation in which IS/JSA(ib) is awarded and HB/CTB is refused – in determining a person’s immigration status thre is no room for subjectivity or discretion, either the claimant has the right piece of paper or they don’t (with one exception – see below).

    So you would be justified in taking the view that it is efficient and sensible to assume that anyone on IS/JSA(ib) does satisfy the test without viewing documents.

    However, anecdotal evidence (I have no figures) suggests that there is a very high error rate by DWP local offices and quite a lot of claimants who are subject to immigration control manage to slip through the net. You would therefore be equally justified in carrying out a local immigration status test on every claimant, which strictly speaking is the correct approach.

    [Now the exception: non-EEA nationals who are family members of EEA nationals. They should have a permit/card showing their status, especially if they would not otherwise have had leave to enter, but in practice they don’t always and there is some room for disagreement between different DMs as to whether a person counts as a family member.]

    In summary, a flowchart refelecting the law is correct if it does not skip the IC test for peole on IS etc. But local policy might take a more pragmatic view and allow such cases to be nodded through.


    Thanks for that Peter,

    But can i also ask for a general view form yourself about the flowcharts. Do they look okay to you- or are there bits you think are wrong or misleading etc? I noticed for example that the Guidance Manual seems to approach PFA cases from the HRT as being the first thing to consider, but i’ve done these assuming it to be one of the last?

    I ask because we hope to start using them to help us deal with these claims- and you seem to be one of the experts when it comes to PFA stuff. So any comments from yourself would be most welcome.


Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.