Student aged 19 – s.142 SSCBA (as was)

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23395
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Mental block…..

    The case involves a student aged 19 undertaking a full-time course of further education.

    A query has arisen as to whether the clmt is a “qualifying young person”.

    One line of thought is that to be a “qualifying young person”, child benefit must be in payment. However, a question has been raised as to whether it is enough for the clmt to be estranged from their parents, or anyone acting in place of the parents.

    Any assistance would be much appreciated.

    #12338
    Carol Meredith
    Participant

    Kevin,, I think that your student is a “qualifying young person” because they satisfy the child benefit definition provided the course of study was started before they reached the age of 19.

    Carol

    #12339
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Thanks Carol. Unfortunately, I think my post wasn’t quite clear enough.

    It isn’t in doubt that the clmt would be a QYP if Child Ben was in payment. However, in this case, there is no Child Benefit.

    Instead, it is argued that it is enough for the clmt to be estranged from his parents, or anyone acting in place of the parents. I’m struggling to find the Act (April 2006 version) that refers to this – assuming it exists.

    NB: s.142 has been replaced by the Child Benefit Act 2005. But, I still can’t find any reference to “estranged” etc.

    #12340
    markp
    Participant

    Kevin,

    Would estranged appear in the IS Regs _ I seem to recollect in the dim and distant past (and a previous incarnation!) this being in IS Regs.

    CPAG book 04/05 chapter 24 refers to IS entitlement/eligibility and quotes Regs 4ZA and 13 (2) (a) – (e) of IS Regs. Same para also refers to R (IS) 9/94.

    Hope this is right!

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

    #12341
    markp
    Participant

    Kevin,

    Ignore second post somehow posted twice!

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

    #12342
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Thanks for the replies.

    I’m starting to think that Child Benefit is a total red herring for this query. Having now managed to find and read the Child Benefit (General) Regs 2006, in terms of the education and training condition (CBR 3), I now don’t think Child Benefit is a factor at all in this case.

    If anyone thinks otherwise, I’d be happy to listen.

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20060223.htm

    Regards

    [Edit] NB: If the child benefit is in fact a red herring, is the Zebedee guide incorrect on page 410?

    #12343
    Anonymous
    Guest

    And the CPAG book 06-07 refers to the same IS regs as Mark points out above. 8)
    I think you are right about CB being a total red herring here.

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