Non-resident partner…?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #22341

    Please advise…

    The case I have this morning is as follows:

    Claimant aged 35
    Partner age 29
    No children or other household members
    Partner vacated the property 04/06/06. She intends to start a college course in Cambridge in September, and is currently staying there with friends.
    Claimant intends to join her in Cambridge when her course starts. Until then, he will live here.
    He has made a claim due to the fact that he will be meeting all his bills and rent for his property here, the implication being that she will no longer be contributing (he has not said this in as many words).

    My question is whether we should include the partner on the claim following her date of vacation. They are still a married couple, they are not estranged or separated, although the partner has left the existing property.

    Thanks in advance, Em


    How definite is the course of study? If it is definite then you could consider Reg 7 (6) (b) for the period she is away. However it seems that she has gone prior to beginning the course and so you would need to ask why she has gone so soon before starting her course.

    It is possible that she may return to the property to which your post refers so it would not be unreasonable to treat as temporarily absent until such time as the tenancy actually ends.

    Reg 15 covers whether or not the partner should be part of the household. From the details you have supplied the partnership has not ended and so they are still a couple.

    Glad it’s not on my desk!!

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................


    Try looking at new reg 21 (2).
    This says that if the person is living away but will resume living with partner (left behind) in the future, and the absence is not likely to excede 52 weeks, they can be considered as still being resident.
    Don’t think there is any similar residence rules for CTB though. 8)



    Jon is right – I had my nose in the 2005/06 Findlay and forgot to check new Reg no.

    Sorry to confuse!!!

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................


    I think they are still a couple, and I would start with Reg 21(1) & (2) of the 2006 HB Regs. This says that anyone who is temporarily living away from other members of the family should still be treated as part of the household, unless they do not intend to resume living with the other family members, or do so intend but have been/will be living apart for more than 52 weeks.

    The careful wording of this Reg allows the household to be a movable feast. I read it to mean that the fact that the partner does not intend to return to live in this particular dwelling is overridden by the fact that she intends to resume living with your claimant in the near future. This means that they should be aggregated as a couple and whatever income or capital she has should be included.

    They do not qualify for HB on two homes under Reg 7(6) because from what you say she is not a student who would be entitled to HB as a single person in her own right; and not only that, she probably doesn’t pay rent anyway. So it’s HB on one home only. There is an issue to settle: which is the normal home? It seems to me that the place where your claimant is living is probably still the couple’s normal home, although this is a situation that the Regs did not foresee and provide clear instructions on. In support of that view, if you were to apply Reg 7(3) to the partner as if she were single, it would instruct you to treat your claimant’s house as the normal home because that is where she would have liability. So I think the obvious choice of normal home is the one that your claimant is occupying and claiming for. (Strictly speaking I know she is not a student yet, but you can still follow the general policy intention by referring to the rules that will apply once she becomes a student)

    CTB is easier. If she is still regarded as a resident for tax purposes, aggregate her as the partner. If she isn’t, don’t. CTB Reg 11 is a bit different from HB Reg 21 – in my view because you are being given a nod and a wink to align the CTB household with the billing arrangements.


    Of course they’re still a couple. If not every partner of a member of the forces would claim every time they were posted away. They are still a married couple and have just chosen to live apart for a while. I certainly wouldn’t believe that the partner who’s moved away won’t be contributing.


Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.