Non-dependant deduction delay for a non-dependant’s child?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #39398

    A situation has arisen where the non-dependant’s child has themselves become a non-dependant.

    They have always been in the household but the question is should the non-dependant’s child be classed as part of the household?

    If so it would seem that no non-dependant deduction delay will apply. If not then should a non-dependant deduction delay apply?

    chris harvey

    The child of the non dep is part of the household. Whilst they were a dependant no charge is applied. When they cease to be a dependant and become a non dependant the relevant charge will apply. If the claimant is over 65 there should be a 6 month delay in applying the charge.


    I’m not convinced that there would be a delay.

    The GM states that where the claimant and/or partner is aged 65 or over and either a new non-dependant moves in, or an existing non-dependant has a change of circumstances that would mean an increased deduction, it will be deferred for 26 weeks. A dependant becoming a non-dependant does not fit into either of these categories and therefore the deferral will not apply.

    From 4 April 2005
    Make the deduction immediately as the change is neither the arrival of a new
    non-dependant (they were already in the household) and they are not an existing
    non-dependant who had a change of circumstances that would increase the


    Well…it is an “increase” if you accept the formulation that moving from a position of no deduction to some kind of deduction does represent an “increase” brought about by a change of circs. I think it is arguable either way (unless it’s been settled at UT at some point?)


    A dependant becoming a non-dep would not attract the delay – the deduction would apply immediately.

    However an <18 non-dep turning 18 possibly does attract the delay - at least the Adelphi seems to think so (as of 2008):


    Sorry to revive this thread, but i’m a bit confused (no surprises there) and as its Friday perhaps people will be a bit more forgiving for my query.

    The original post states the child has always been ‘in the household’. I’m assuming this literally means they have always lived there, not that the claimant is treated as responsible for the child.

    If the non-dep is responsible for the child, then the child is not a dependant (of the claimant), nor would they be classed as part of the claimant’s ‘household’ for benefit purposes under reg 21. In which case wouldn’t the child have always been a non-dependant and therefore turning 18 would suggest to me that the delay would apply under 59(b)(ii) as per Michael’s link above?

    Please feel free to point out what i have missed, its probably glaringly obvious!!!


    You’ve not missed anything – the answer depends on whether the non-dep’s child was originally a ‘dependant’ on the claim. Assuming the non-dep was responsible for the child, the child has always been a non-dep so the delay applies. But if the claimant was responsible for the non-dep’s child, the change from a dependant to a non-dep does not trigger the delay. So that’s nice and consistent then! If a claimant takes responsibility for their grandchild they get the additional applicable amount but lose out when the grandchild becomes a non-dep.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.