Could someone clear this up for me please, 'coz I'm reet confused.

Client is Polish jobseeker and is receiving Jobseeker's Allowance. He has received a decision on his Housing Benefit to the effect that UNLESS he is in receipt of JSA, then he is NOT treated as liable to pay rent. The LA has quoted the relevant Regs, but on my reading of them it looks like the opposite should be true. The relevant sections of the Regs are here:

Housing Benefit Regulations 2006:

Reg. 10.—(1) A person from abroad who is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling shall be treated as if he were not so liable

1(2) In paragraph (1), “person from abroad” means... a person who is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

(3) No person shall be treated as habitually resident in the United Kingdom unless he has a right to reside in the United Kingdom other than a right to reside which falls within paragraph(3A).

(3A) A right to reside falls within this paragraph if it is one which exists by virtue of, or in accordance with, one or more of the following–
(b) regulation 14 of (The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006), but only in a case where the right exists under that regulation because the person is–
(i) a jobseeker for the purpose of the definition of “qualified person” in regulation 6(1) of those Regulations

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

14. —(1) A qualified person is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom for so long as he remains a qualified person.

6. —(1) In these Regulations, "qualified person" means a person who is an EEA national and in the United Kingdom as—
(a) a jobseeker



Therefore, whilst the client is a jobseeker, his right to reside does not fall in a category OTHER than those in Para (3A), but falls squarely under it, so shouldn't he only be treated as liable to pay rent if he is NOT a jobseeker?

i think you're right and the HB decision maker needs to have that pointed out (i take it, you havne't said, that they've refused HB?)

in any event, DWP should have confirmed to HB that he is getting JSA ... so hb are really confused, not you...

Thing is, he's been on JSA more than he's not. They've paid his HB for all the periods he's been on JSA but not when he has been actually working. Not sure whether he would have been entitled based on his wages during those periods, but that's another matter. I think the LA's error has been to his advantage in the longrun.

Actually, the authority are absolutely right.

Para (3A)(b)(i) covers those who are here as jobseekers (not necessarily to be conflated with someone receiving JSA) under reg 6(1) of the 2006 regs - but who are not receiving IBJSA. Those who fall within one of the sub-heads of para (3A) have a right to reside but are specifically excluded from being treated as hab. resident - ie no benefit entitlement.

Para (3B) goes on to list those who are not persons from abroad - and who are, thus, exempted from the hab. res. test. Amongst these, at para (3B)(k) are claimants "in receipt of income support or on an income-based jobseeker's allowance."

Right.... phew! The LA haven't mentioned para 3B, just 3A and they have said he can't claim HB unless he is in receipt of JSA - they haven't mentioned IS. I guess its not worth labouring the point with them, though.

Thanks for the quick replies!

Does this mean he has done his 12 months under the workers' registration scheme and is thus a worker on an involuntary interruption in duly registered unemployment?