Income from boarder in AIF but boarder is non dependant

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #20221

    I have a claim where the AIF includes boarder income but the “boarder” is a non dependant for HB/CTB purposes. PS have confirmed that it should be included as it is payment from the clts son for lodging with him. Should I exclude the amount in the AIF?


    I think we have to use the Aif as supplied, even though we think it is sometimes wrong!
    Must admit I’ve not seen one such as this… yet, however this case does not sound unique.
    Pc handbook does mention”modifying the Aif to take account of the savings credit and non-dependant that is treated as the claimant’s income” but this isn’t one of these is it?
    I would be interested to hear that this is “modifiable”, anyone else?


    I am pretty sure the Pension Service is wrong about this. The definition of a non-dep for PC purposes is in para 1(4) of Schedule II the PC Regs. By default, a person who resides with the claimant is a non-dep unless they fall into a specified exclusion. One of the specified exclusions covers commercial lodgers and tenants/subtenants, but not if they are close relatives of the claimant: para 1(6).

    In other words, the same definition as HB.

    So this person is almost certainly a non-dep and not a commercial lodger. The claimant ought to appeal/apply for a revision of the PC decision. In fact, they might as well appeal against the LA’s decision as well, then TAS can organise a big get-together to thrash it out.

    In the meantime, because the instructions on AIF cases are so prescriptive in the HB Regs, I would suggest that you treat the claimant’s son as a commercial lodger for the time being, as you would be double-counting if you slapped on a non-dep charge as well. That will at least minimise any hardship. If the payments treated as income from a lodger are very low, you might actually be overpaying on the HB side, but that would be a DWP official error so don’t worry about it (CH/0943/2003)


    A member of staff has had the same situation airise with a relative’s claim.
    Lady has her two grandchildren live with her and TPC are insisting that they be treated as commercial lodgers. She has asked for a revision but the original decision has been upheld!


    I suggest that you get acknowlgement from the PS that a question has arisen as to the entritlement to Savings Credit.

    We had a case where the customer had convinced us that the woman he lived with was his non-dep but from 6/10/03 the PS had assessed her as his partner, given the higher appropriate amount, included the income in the AIF and as a couple, they qualified for savings ceredit.

    If we had followed the PS line we would have massively overpaid them.

    I did not amend the claim to partner and queried it with the PS. The liasion contact agreed that there was a question of entitlement to SVC and told me it was flagged for a visit. Admittedly sorting it out in the end took a couple/4 months as the first visit failed and they had to be chivied into arraging another visit but the PS now accept that they are not a couple and hence they do not qualify for savings credit

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.