Just a quick question, I hope.

Couple, wife has no recourse to public funds. Husband, who does, claims IS for himself and the 2 children on incapacity grounds. Gets paid the single personal allowance.

He qualifies for DP. He is being paid the single rate of DP. Is this correct?

would the comparison be with the old lone parent premium, in that you didn't qualify for it if your partner was a person subject to immigration control, because you had a partner, so here you've got a partner so should get the couple rate ... ??

however, if they do get the couple rate, isn't there then a concern about additional public funds?

Indeed Shawn.

I know that the interaction of the different parts of IS and the immigration control test do not necissarily "join up".

I was hoping someone had already checked the IS schedules and knew what the amswere was, as premiums can be a bit tricky for "mixed" couples.

It might well be that the rules for premiums reflect the rules for personal allowances in this instance, and that the single premium is the right one to pay. There's a first time for everything! The schedules are tortuously drafted though.

I had a quick look myself, but was stumped. All of the bits in the special circumstances part! I was hoping someone else had already looked into this.

If anyone is interested....

I think this is covered by paragraph 16A of schedule 7 of the IS Regs.

It is where the single person allowance bit comes from - it also covers premiums (reg 17 (1) (d)).

So, I think its right that he gets the single rate DP. Anyone disagree?

I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but I can't see anything in Reg 17 or in Sch 2 that explicitly says that only the single person rate of the premiums applies.

Para 16A of Sch 7 explicitly states that the claimant gets the personal allowance for the claimant only, but for premiums it just says "any amounts applicable to him". This is exactly the wording that Reg 17(1)(d) uses to give entitlement to premiums generally, and in that context it clearly doesn't distinguish between single and couple claimants.

It might be arguable that if it was intended that the premiums should be at the single person rate it would be explicitly spelt out in Para 16A. I don't think it's it a very strong argument, but it might be worth a try.

I know exactly what you mean Keith.

I thought when I read the offending paragraph that a use of semi-colons would have been preferable to all of those commas!

I think they meant to say (and most likely did say) that the amount payable is "the amount applicable in respect of the claimant only" in regard to the pa's and the premiums as well. Terrible drafting.

It may be possible to argue otherwise, I agree. I think this is why I got confused when I first looked at it. On second reading, it seemed clearer. But now you are swaying me back the other way!

If successful, you then come up against the problem of additional recourse to public funds, as Shawn pointed out.

I opt for the couple rate being correct in such a case.....(worth a try anyway- provided it won't mess up a client's immigration position by being recourse to funds).

Would have to argue as follows:

Para 16A of Sch 7 is worded with the "amount in respect of the claimant only" at the very beginning. The "only" bit does not carry right through to the end of the para and only applies to the personal allowance bit at the beginning... or something like that.

Someone hurry up and appeal this then