Terms & Conditions

[alixbunce]

Please help

Customer was absent from her home for more than 13 weeks but less than 52 weeks in Ireland caring for her sick daughter.

States that she cannot prove that this care was medically approved care because they are catholic travellers who do not believe in doctors and nurses.
They have their own healers within the travelling community and they take the sick to places where healing take place and with help of God.

What do you think?

[peterdelamothe]

Below are the relevant bits of reg 7. What catches my eye is “medical treatment” in (iii); no reference to medically approved so no need to have it certified by a medical practitioner. Does the latter HAVE to be a qualified doctor? I am not sure; there is a big growth in alternative remedies.

I would also add that there would surely be a strong Human Rights case here.

(ii) resident in a hospital or similar institution as a patient; or
(iii) undergoing, or as the case may be, his partner or his dependant child is undergoing, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, medical treatment, or medically approved convalescence, in accommodation other than residential accommodation; or
(v) undertaking medically approved care of a person residing in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; or
(vii) a person who is, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, receiving medically approved care provided in accommodation other than residential accommodation; or
(d) the period of his absence is unlikely to exceed 52 weeks or, in exceptional circumstances, is unlikely substantially to exceed that period.
(17) A person to whom paragraph (16) applies shall be treated as occupying the dwelling he normally occupies at his home during any period of absence not exceeding 52 weeks beginning from the first day of that absence.
(18) In this regulation—
“medically approved’ means certified by a medical practitioner;
“patient’ means a person who is undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient in any hospital or similar institution;
“residential accommodation’ means accommodation which is provided in—
(a) a care home;
(b) an independent hospital;
(c) an Abbeyfield Home; or
(d) an establishment managed or provided by a body incorporated by Royal Charter or constituted by Act of Parliament other than a local social services authority;

[alixbunce]

The Human Rights issue was my main concern

Thank you

[gerryg]

Medically approved is defined in the reg as certified by a medical practitioner.

Unless she can show that it was then unfortunately she doesn’t qualify under the 52 week absence rule.

I dare say that someone will now turn up a CD stating otherwise.

[Anonymous]

a quick extract from New Reg 5:

5(8 )(B)This paragraph shall apply to a person who is temporarily absent from the dwelling he normally occupied as his home (“absence”), if –
(a) he intends to return to occupy the dwelling as his home; and
(b) while the part of the dwelling which is normally occupied by him has not been let, or as the case may be, sublet; and
(c) he is– (v) undertaking medically approved care of a person residing in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or

(9) In this regulation “medically approved” means certified by a medical practitioner.

(cut to show the relevent bit)

Do their healers have any medical qualifications at all? I’m not sure how much of a medical qualification would be needed though, partly as I’m not sure what qualifications there are? I don’t know if, for example, a St Johns ambulance staff member would count, they are medically trained, but not to the same level as a doctor is.

Not sure that this is all that helpful to you really,
Sorry
Jon

[peterdelamothe]

My point was that I do not see that medical treatment in

“undergoing, or as the case may be, his partner or his dependant child is undergoing, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, medical treatment”

is qualified by the need for it to be medically approved. There are some key “or” in this regulation rather than “and”.

[gerryg]

How I read the question is that she went to Ireland to look after her daughter who already lived there. If that’s the case I stick by my earlier answer.

However, on second reading the question might have meant that her dependent daughter lived with her and she has taken her to Ireland to receive the care. If that’s the case then I think I agree with Peter’s analysis and she could get it. If it’s a non-dependent daughter then it’s back to not getting it again.

[Anonymous]

I certainly read the query as the daughter already living in Ireland.

If this is the case then its clearly reg 5(8)(B)(c)(v), rather than reg 5(8)(B)(c)(iii).

Part (iii) relates to dependants, so if the daughter is a dependant then Peter would appear to be correct, if the daughter is not a dependant then it is part (v) that is correct, and the question of who is a “medical practioner” pops up again.

Cheers
Jon

[peterdelamothe]

The question did say “they take the sick to places where healing takes place”, which is why i made that assumption.

[Author]

Posts