Home > Forums > HB 2006 Regs > G7 Court of Appeal decision in Scott Wilson v DWP (CH/3801/0

G7 Court of Appeal decision in Scott Wilson v DWP (CH/3801/0

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 14, 2006 at 10:18 am #22453
    Anonymous
    Guest

    This is interesting.

    What are people doing in this scenario if the claim is made and we have the Ni No for the claimant but not the partner. G7 suggests no benefit at all, but surely we could at least award benefit to the claimant ?

    July 14, 2006 at 10:54 am #8093
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I do not believe so, Mike, for the simple reason that they are a couple.
    What you are suggesting is (administratively) ignoring the fact that the claimant has a partner. 😯
    Cannot see any basis in the Regulations for that. Anywhere. At all. :15:
    Reg 22(a) says that the applicable amount should include an amount for the partner, if there is one.
    Don’t think we can get round that one! 8) 8)
    I think that the appeal clearly states that both the claimant AND partner should have a NINO, or have applied for one, or given info so one can be found.
    No NINO, no HB. 😈 8)

    July 17, 2006 at 2:27 pm #8094
    Anonymous
    Guest

    We’ve just completed a NINO & DOB verification scan as supplied by HBMS. Once we’ve sifted through those that we had a NINO for but didn’t add it to the system (or entered it incorrectly) we’ll be getting in touch with them to tell that what Jon so neatly summed up.

    Scans can be obtained from the data scans team. if you haven’t already got the details but want them, PM me and I’l send the info.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.