whats the difference between Right of abode and right to reside

We have a Nigerian National on UC in temp accommodation - so are looking at paying HB.
Apparently Nigerian nationals have a “right of abode” in the UK as it is /was a Commonwealth country.  I don’t know if that right of abode is sufficient to claim HB (or uc) and **thought** that the person would need a visa that didn’t have a restriction on recourse to public funds. 
Not sure whether we need to verify customer’s right to reside, or just pay it cos UC have paid (I assume they check eligibilty, but notes say customer has a right of abode and is therefore eligible.  )
thanks in advance

Right of abode is a subset of right to reside: if you have a right of abode, you most certainly have a right to reside.  But a right to reside is not necessarily a right of abode.

Certain Nigerian citizens have a right of abode in the UK, but not very many.  Essentially you have a right of abode if:

- You are British, or
- You already had a right of abode as a Commonwealth citizen in particular circumstances before the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force.

See s2 of the Immigration Act 1971.

As for the particular circumstances that had to apply before the 1981 Act came into force, you needed a British parent or a British husband (not wife).  So it’s very much a niche category for non-British citizens

A right of abode is the right to come and go from the UK as under s2 Immigration Act 1971. British citizens have a right of abode. Certain Commonwealth nationals also have the right of abode depending variously on the circumstances of their birth and their parents. A person with a right of abode is not a PSIC for benefit purposes because they do not require permission to enter the UK and they have a right to reside because a right of abode is a right to reside.

The right of abode for Commonwealth nationals was abolished in 1983 but many people are still covered if they had the right before that date. Most of the Windrush generation came to the UK on the strength of a right of abode which - by definition - is rarely well documented and ended up getting caught up in the whole hostile environment situation.

This claimant may already have applied to the Home Office’s Windrush scheme which can provide people with a right to adobe with a document confirming that status (among other things). I do not understand that he is obliged to do so and may be able to prove his status in some other way.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/windrush-scheme

DMG Memo 8/18 may assist: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710926/m-08-18.pdf

Edit: snap…