Hungarian – Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38410
    Andreas
    Participant

    I am hoping for some advice/guidance on the following… I’ve looked at so much information (UK and EU law) and know less than when I began!

    We have a single Hungarian national entitled to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit from 16 May 10 – 14 Aug 11. They have lived at their current address since 2009 but have not claimed benefit before.

    They are not in receipt of JSA(IB) and their ESA claims (C+IR) were disallowed due to ‘failed WCA’. The ESA claim indicates they ceased working abroad in July 2006. ESA was claimed in October and November 2010 while IDB was decided in February 2011.

    DWP have verified no Home Office restrictions or deportation issues from other country post May 2000.

    The claimant has provided a Worker’s Registration Document dated 1 September 2006 (and based on the fact no claims have been made, absence of restrictions or PFA decision from DWP etc) I am happy to infer that the relevant 12 month period was satisfied.

    Can the claim be paid? I first thought ‘no’ due to ‘work-seeker’ conditions – but now think ‘yes’ – subject to derogation regarding ‘qualified persons’ not applying.

    Is R2R/HRT still satisfied or does claimant still have to be a ‘work-seeker’ (due to derogation from directive )? If not entitled now will it make a difference once 5 years residence have been reached (some time between July – September)?

    Help, please :tired:

    #108231
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Does he satisfy Art 17(1)(b) of DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC, permanent R2R because he is no longer able to work (Incapacity) and has been employed for more than 2 years prior to the injury?

    #108243
    Andreas
    Participant

    Hi Kay, that is why I changed my initial thoughts from not be eligible to being eligible but my understanding is that the ‘incapacity’ must be permanent. As things stand they are due to be reassed in August 2011 – so I am not sure it applies.

    However, it led me to thinking maybe they could be eligible as a ‘qualified person’. Derogation doesn’t apply if they are treated as EEA rather than A8, however, I’m not sure of if they are still treated as EEA now they are ‘incapacitated’ and haven’t been resident for 5 years (yet). If not, and still treated as A8 they can’t be a ‘qualified person’.

    Any ideas???

    #108253
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote=Andreas]Hi Kay, that is why I changed my initial thoughts from not be eligible to being eligible but my understanding is that the ‘incapacity’ must be permanent. As things stand they are due to be reassed in August 2011 – so I am not sure it applies[/quote]

    Hi Andreas, well, the incapacitation can only be temporary (Art 7 temporary illness) or permanent under Art 17, and as that’s the case you can treat as either and they still have R2R.

    #108272
    Andreas
    Participant

    Hi Kay, thanks for the advice; you’ve been very helpful in getting my head round this. 🙂

    I’m going for eligibility to HB as follows…

    R2R under Art 7(3)(a) (and if incapacity is judged as permant following the August review under Art 17(1)(b)). HR under HB Reg 10(3B)(a) (based on Immigration (EEA) Reg 6(2)(a) and disapplication of Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Reg 5(3) due to 12 month authorised employment).

    Does that sound right or am I just over analysing the situation :quest:

    [Edited to amend incorrect HB reference 10(3)(b) to 10(3B)(a)].

    #108279
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Sounds about right to me Andreas.

    #108282
    michaelh
    Participant

    Nice motor Kay – you must be doing OK

    $)

    #108284
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Im my dreams, just saw the car and had to strike a pose…. 8)

    #108285
    michaelh
    Participant

    would be nice though – I have dealt with a few HB clmts with motors like that….where did we go wrong :hat:

    On the point of this thread though – when I read the original post my initial thought was that the person in question had been incapacitated at work and so should be OK whether temp illness or permenant, so I agree with you fully.

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