New requirement regs for NIno

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #23070

    I read this today on rightsnet:
    [i:013cbbe21e]”New regulations have been issued to prevent National Insurance numbers from being allocated to people in employment who have no right to work in the UK.
    In force from 11 December 2006, the Social Security (National Insurance Numbers) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SI.No.2897/2006) provide that a person who is required to apply for a national insurance number because s/he is an employed earner or self-employed earner must provide a document described in Part 1 or 2 of the Schedule to the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2004 in support of their application. “[/i:013cbbe21e]
    I recently read on hbinfo that DWP staff can , under their “SNAP” guidance, issue a NIno purely for the purposes of claiming benefit (including HB), regardless of whether or not that applicant has a right to work. Does anyone know if this new regulation overirides that right?
    If it does, that makes it even more difficult for couples claiming HB, as surely it will mean no HB at all for a couple where one has no right to work?


    As far as I am aware, the SNAP code is not publicly available and I have never seen it. But the Court saw the code in the Scott Wilson case and was satisfied that it provided a mechanism for a NINO to be issued outside the strict requirements of the 2001 Regs when it is required to support a benefit claim by the partner of the person applying for the NINO.

    Reg 9(1) of the 2001 Regs requires anyone over 16 to apply for a NINO, but para (2) then relaxes that requirement so that it only applies to people in employment or self-employment and those wishing to make voluntary NI contributions.

    My reading of the amending Regs is that the new Reg 9(1A) only applies where the application is made under Reg 9(1), i.e. when the person is obliged to get a NINO because they are working.

    If a NINO application is made under the extra-statutory arrangements in the SNAP code, then any requirements imposed by Reg 9 would not apply to such an application. See in particular para 47 of the Wilson decision.

    So without having sight of the SNAP code itself, I would conclude from the amending Regs and the background provided by the Wilson case that the new Regs are basically aimed at stopping people from working illegally and do not have any effect on the extra-statutory allocation of NINOs for the prevention of benefit ID fraud.


    Peter Barker beat me to it, but I also think thatas the NINo requirement as it applies to benefits is itself contained in primary legislation ie S1(1A) of the Administration Act, there is very little scope for secondary legisalation to override it in the way some people fear that the 2006 Amendment Regs do.

    Although the explanatory note is not part of the regulations, it does make it clear that Reg 2(a) is only aimed at those whjo are required to apply for a NINO because they are working


    phew! thanks.
    (Of course it still leaves the unanswered dilemma of couples claiming partial HB where one cannot have recourse to public funds and their presence on the claim increases the payment, thus = public funds = immigration status problem….. I don’t think we’ll ever have a solution to this!)


    This is not strictly about the original post but there are so many threads about PFAs with no recourse to public funds that I thought it easier to ask this on the latest thread!
    We include a partner with no recourse to public funds in the HB / CTB calculation but sometimes our Council Tax section will leave SPD on as they say the partner is invisible like under 18s according to their legislation – is this right?


    The one and only time where a person without recourse to public funds is able to be treated as disregarded is when they are the non-British spouse of a student. Other than that there is absolutely no mention anywhere in the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 to allow them to be ignored.

    If, under the sole/main residence concept, they are considered to have their main or only home in the property then they should be counted.


    The SNAP Guide has just been released under the FOI Act:

    It’s dry as toast by the way.


    Thanks Mark.

    I half expected this, but I have skim-read the code and searched on the word “partner”, and guess which bit I can’t find anywhere?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.