Can never resist this one.
[b:335a28c998]The Social Security Administration Act 1992[/b:335a28c998]
The NINO requirements for claimants from overseas, couples from overseas or British claimants with a partner from overseas are, on the face of it, no different from the NINO requirements for anyone else. The NINO requirement arises under s1 of the Administration Act – a provision of wide-ranging effect which simply says that anyone who claims a social security benefit has to:
– provide a NINO plus evidence that it is theirs, or
– apply for a NINO if they don’t already have one and support that application with evidence of ID
These requirements apply to the person making the claim and also to anyone else in respect of whom the claim is made. Regulations may modify those requirements in particular circumstances.
This applies across the whole social security system. Section 1 is concerned with the process of making a claim and it doesn’t mention residence or immigration status – it applies to everyone irrespective of their country of origin.
HB and CTB are social security benefits, so s1 of the Administration Act applies to them.
[b:335a28c998]The HB Regs[/b:335a28c998]
HB Reg 4 disapplies the NINO requirement for claimants living in a hostel, and it excludes dependant children from the people for whom a NINO must be supplied. But it does not exclude partners.
[b:335a28c998]The CTB Regs[/b:335a28c998]
Same exemption as HB, except no reference to hostels because residents don’t pay CT
[b:335a28c998]What if the claimant or partner hasn’t got a NINO because they have come from abroad?[/b:335a28c998]
Section 1 of the Act seems to be clear: they’d better apply for one and provide supporting evidence. The HB Regs do not exempt them from this requirement. If they won’t apply for a NINO, or if they won’t cooperate with the DWP’s enquiries, s1 is not satisfied and the claim fails. Or so you would think.
However, this is where it starts to get messy. In CH/3801/2004, decided last June, the Commissioner said that a UK citizen (LA tenant) did not have to provide a NINO for his Thai wife who had no recourse to public funds and was reluctant to apply for a NINO on questionable immigration advice. On the facts of the case, having a partner made no difference to the claimant since he was on JSA(ib) and stood to get 100% rebate whether he had a partner or not. So he wasn’t claiming “in respect of” here, in the sense that she did not bring any extra HB in her wake. The case did not look at CTB, where the issues are more complex; and the decision might have been different if the partner’s presence in the household had a favourable impact on the HB means test.
The DWP has been given leave to appeal against this decision and I understand the appeal will be heard in the summer. The DWP will presumably want to push two arguments that came up in the Commissioner’s hearing:
– Is the claimant always claiming “in respect of” their partner even if they gain no extra benefit as a result of having a partner living with them, so the partner is always subject to the NINO requirement in every case?
– Is a DCI 1LA an application for a NINO that satisfies s1, or must the person concerned actually take the initiative and apply for a NINO themselves?[/b]
.
