PFA – some thoughts needed.

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34913
    paul_edmund
    Participant

    I have been looking at potentially whether a case should be a PFA and all I’ve managed to do is cover my desk with books, peoples thoughts on the following would be appreciated:

    [b:b16546d073]Background

    A claim for HB / CTB was submitted on 26th April 2007. The claimant is an Italian national, partner is a full-time student from Namibia who has no recourse to public funds.

    Prior to making the claim the claimant was working full-time, it would appear for at least 12-months, although this fact is not confirmed.

    Claimant left work (unfortunately no reason for this has been collected!) and did make an application for JSA(IB). However after a couple of weeks claimant withdraw this claim because his partner was an ineligible person who happens to also be working 20hrs per week.

    [/b:b16546d073]The Issue

    The next step therefore is to establish the right to reside and of course potential eligibility.

    We feel the claimant cannot be treated as a work seeker, because unfortunately withdraw JSA claim, therefore no longer registered as seeking work, hmmm seems fairly clear.

    Next issue being considered is can we look at the ‘inactive provisions’ and is the person ‘self-sufficient’. Unfortunately this is where we are becoming more stuck, can’t really find anything that says the claimant should be considered under this.

    It is felt by a couple of us that he could be treated as self-sufficient, partner had income and appears relatives were sending him money. Claimant has now also found work (therefore period out of work was 6-weeks).

    What are peoples thoughts on sulf-sufficiency, or is the plot just being missed completely!

    Cheers.

    #98187
    paul_edmund
    Participant

    Sorry meant the ‘inactive status’ not self-sufficiency – all thoughts welcome though.

    #98188
    stevedaymond
    Participant

    The claimant as an EEA national would be classed as one of the following while not in employment:

    Either he retained worker status depending on the reasons for leaving his employment and the length of time he was employed, or

    A jobseeker, for which the only qualifying right to reside for our purposes is JSA(IB), or

    Economically inactive for which he must be self-sufficient (could be based on the partners income) [u:1ed3777d71]and[/u:1ed3777d71] have comprehensive medical insurance (see A9/2006 pat 51).

    Was JSA(IB) awarded? If not:

    If your claimant was temporarily unable to work as a result of illness or accident, or lost their job (not left it voluntarily) were signing on at the Jobcentre and had been employed for over a year and unemployed for less than 6 months, they will retain worker status and be eligible.

    If your fella left work for any reason not mentioned above, and does not have medical insurance he has a non-qualifying right to reside for our purposes and fails the RTR aspect of the HRT. Unless of course he has resided in the UK for over 5 years in which case he has permanent right of residence as per 2004/38/EC.

    Hope this helps.

    #98189
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I’m willing to be proved wrong on this one, 🙂 but what strikes me is that Italian could have claimed JSA (ib) just for self and avoided the refusal on partner’s public funds issue- of course any partner’s income would have been taken into account but I understand that unlike HB, JSA(ib) can be “separated” so only one claims. Then as its an HB claim based on JSA there’s no question of the Namibian’s immigration status being breached as there would have been no “extra” HB as a result of being included in the claim. I wonder whether there’s scope for a backdate request on grounds of wrongful advice from the JCP? ie should have been advised to claim just for self?????

    #98190
    stevedaymond
    Participant

    The JSA(IB) would be a joint claim as there is a partner in the household. However, the DWP would only award the couple a single person applicable amount as the partner has no recourse (the partner would not appear on the ETD), but as stated the partners income would need to be included so the earned income would have been above a single person applicable amount and they would not qualify for JSA(IB).

    #98191
    Anonymous
    Guest

    oh yes missed that bit about partner working 20 hrs- unless a Morecambe bay cockle picker very unlikely income would be low enough for JSA! sorry! 😳

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