Hi non dep deductions based upon unknown earnings?

You may also find this guidance useful: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100406130654/http://dwp.gov.uk/docs/g8-2007.pdf

I have represented in a few cases over the years where I have argued that the person is not a non dependant. (with some success).

Useful authorities include CH/3957/2007, CIS/14850/1996, CSIS/100/1993

Apologies to Stainsby for not giving you enough info.

He would go out maybe a couple of days a week here and there.

I perhaps used the term “sofa surfing” incorrectly (sorry!)

Go out friday. Come back monday for example.

He was still ordinarily resident at the address, and there is no evidence to show he was resident anywhere else to use to support any appeal regarding residence .

I just think that automatically applying a NDD at £90 a week is a tad unfair. No income at all usually attracts £14
NDD and i thought i read something that said they cant do that any more, but i could be wrong!

Thanks for your help guys and gals

I

Given that the supposed non-dep here “had no income at the time”, I don’t know that CH/48/2006 is completely on point. In that case there was no dispute that the non-dep was a worker, the appeal was just about what was a reasonable earnings figure to assume in the particular circs.

In the present case, if the balance of evidence shows that the non-dep was not an earner, i.e. was not working 16+ hours, then the NDD can be no more than £14.65.

As with the question of whether the supposed non-dep is in the household at all, I think the onus lies with the council to show they are more likely than not to be a worker, and only then go on to consider probable earnings, no?

(if son co-operates, JSA records might evidence whether he has ever actually had a job?)

I represented in CH/3935/2007. In that case,  the appellant’s daughter had no other residence for over 7 months but the Commissioner held that she was not a non dependant during that period.  It was only after it became apparent that there was no real prospect of the daughter finding alternative accommodation that she should then be considered to be a non dependant.
The   Commissioner also held that you cannot argue directly from the facts of other cases
.
I f you don’t feel able to argue that the person in your case is not a non dependant, you should be able to rely on CH/2324/2003 para 12 as authority that the lower deduction must be applied because there is no evidence to suggest that the person works for more than 16hrs per week

The common practice in these parts is for the LA to request proof of income (or nil income), but to apply max NDDs if no response to the request. I don’t see a problem with this approach, as it encourages claimants to engage with the service and “take ownership” of their claim.

I’m sorry, I disagree.  I think it is bad practice to apply the highest deduction without as basis to believe that this would be appropriate (usually it is not).  I think my link above suggests that it is against HB processing staff guidance which refers to the case posted by someone else above.  I can’t follow arguments which say that it would not apply in this situation which may well be my failing.

This is an interesting thread. If a non-dependant in receipt of JSA is sanctioned and the LA knows this, it is sensible to apply a lower deduction given the balance of probabilities points at the non-dep not having (any) income. If there is evidence that the non-dependant has earnings or some other potentially substantial income, it may be more appropriate to apply a different deduction.

Practically speaking, I would be inclined to use reg 104 to as for a recalculation of the overpayment based on the non-dep’s income, to reduce it to the appropriate rate; this would, of course, only work if the claimant knew/could prove what her son’s income was for that period.