× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Dependant child

CHC
forum member

Welfare rights team - St Mungo's Broadway

Send message

Total Posts: 169

Joined: 22 June 2010

Client is the guardian for a 16 year old whose parent is in prison.  She was receiving Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit for him but he did not return to education or training in September so these stopped, despite numerous attempts the child is still not enrolled on any course or vocational programme. 

The client applied for Housing Benefit after she stopped receiving the CTC/CB however the LA have calculated her applicable amount to include the 16 year old as a dependant child. My understanding was that to be considered a child in her applicable amount he needed to be a qualifying young person for child benefit purposes. Have I missed something?

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Doesn’t sound correct: HB definition a “qualifying young person” is a direct lift from Child Benefit, so if no longer eligible for Chid Benefit because not in post-16 education then no longer a dependant for HB as far as I can see.  I don’t think it is something the Council should determine for itself - if HMRC have decided that the child is not a QYP that means as a matter of law s/he isn’t.  It’s similar to whether or not someone has LCW - this is a status that can only come about through a decision of DWP, it isn’t a finding of fact.  I would say the same principle applies to QYP.

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

Well yes and no.  The QYP definition is lifted from the child benefit legislation, but the non payment of child benefit is not necessarily conclusive.

In CH/2812/2008 Judge Turnbull found at paragraphs 4 and 5

4. Vanita reached the age of 18 on 5 June 2006. As I understand it she left school at the end of the summer term in 2006, and then enrolled at a College for a course leading to a BTEC in the National Diploma, Art and Design: see p.13. As I understand it that course is not “advanced education” within the definition in reg. 1(3) of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006.

5. As I see it (although my view cannot of course be binding on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because they are not a party to this appeal) child benefit should therefore have continued in payment for Vanita whilst she was doing that course: see sections 141 and 142 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and reg. 3 of the 2006 Regulations. Under the definition in those provisions, Vanita continued to be a “qualifying young person” so long as she was in full-time non-advanced education. However, child benefit in fact ceased being paid for Vanita as from (as I understand it) about the end of August 2006. I presume that the Revenue must have been under the impression that Vanita’s new course was advanced education

It seems that in HB the determination of a QYP is a determination of fact for the Council and not necessarily dependant on a parallel determination by HMRC in deciding entitlement to child benefit.

This does of course not help the present claimant as the question of full time non advanced education seems clear cut

File Attachments

paulmoorhouse
forum member

Central and South Sussex CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 96

Joined: 25 January 2012

Hmmm… I’m not sure that it is necessarily the case that the status and entitlement to CHB did end in September. CHC says ‘despite numerous attempts the child is still not enrolled on any course or vocational programme.’ If those efforts are coming from the young person (and were not merely chivving to do something on the part of the Guardian direct at a young person who does not wish to return to education or training) then so long as he is registered with the careers service or equivalent then he would have continued to be a qualifying young person for a Child Benefit Extension Period for 20 weeks from his terminal date. Which by my calculation takes him to 18th January.