From a purely HB/CTB point of view, you treat them as a couple in the uusal way, applicable amount for a couple, joint income and capital.
There is only one claimant and the partners NINO is not required. See the decision of Mr Commissioner Levenson, CH3801/2004 at paras 26-28
“26. I have no doubt that the phrase “a person in respect of whom he is claiming benefit” in section 1(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is capable of including a claimant’s partner with whom he lives, and that in most cases it does in fact include such a partner.
27. However, it seems to me that the injustice of the Secretary of State’s more general argument is demonstrated by the facts of the present case. A claimant lives alone and is correctly in receipt of income support and housing and council tax benefit. The tenancy is and continues to be in his name. He has a national insurance number. He then marries but his wife does not have a national insurance number. She comes to live with him but has no capital or income. She is not allowed to work or to have recourse to public funds. The Secretary of State argues that the claimant would immediately lose his entitlement to housing and council tax benefit because his wife does not have a national insurance number. I cannot accept that this result was either intended or in fact is the consequence of the legislation. The claimant still needs to live somewhere. He still has a level of means that would otherwise entitle him to income support and to passported benefits.
28. Accordingly, I conclude that where a claimant’s partner is not allowed by law to have recourse to public funds, she is not “a person in respect of whom he is claiming benefit” for the purposes of section 1(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in relation to a claim for housing benefit. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(1B) do not have to be satisfied in relation to her.”
.
