cl. aged 61 and has been cohabiting with woman aged 57 from lithuania since march 2005.

woman has been in uk since august 2004.

at first worked as a live in nanny but did not register for nino, as a worker etc because employer said she didn't have to because she was only earning £65.00 p.w.

woman left this employment 18/06/05.

moved in with cl. march 2005.

attended english course arranged by dwp 20/02/06 - 23/08/06 and received £10.00 p.w training allowance but no j.s.a.

since 18/06/05 woman has never worked or been registered as a worker.

woman tried to claim j.s.a but was refused becuse does not have the right to reside.

cl. receives i.b/i.i.d.b and did try to claim p.c as a couple but again this was refused because partner does not have the right to reside.

i spoke with a person at the dwp today who stated that an a8 national has got to be in the uk for 5 years to gain the right to reside if they have not gone through the worker registration scheme way of becoming entitled to in work benefits or the same benefits rights as uk citizens.

is this right ? ? ?

i know this is a complex area and i may not have typed the cl./partners circs very well but any replies will be truly appreciated.

thanx, pete ...

pete,
i don't think the PC disallowance is correct because the HRT is only applied to the claimant, not the partner. the only 'special groups' in terms of applicable amount for PC are patients and polygamous marriages, and reg. 5 of the SPC regs prescribes the circumstances in which a person is treated as not being a menber of the same household, and none appear to apply to your claimant's partner. she is not a person subject to immigration control as in reg. 5(h). (the commentary to reg 21 of the IS regs on'person subject to immigration control' notes that a person who is a national of an EEA state can _never_ be a person subject to immigration control for social security purposes.) not that i'm feeling very sure of anything to do with R2R these days - so much for transparency...but hope this helps.

i'm extremely interested in what you say about the 5 years...were you speaking to a decision-maker in glasgow?

i'm still a bit stuck with an appeal in which i've argued discrimination in applying the HRT when the person had been here over 2 years at the date of claim, referring to the ministerial statement to Parliament in which Angela Eagles said "We intend also to reduce the period when habitual residence inquiries are made from 5 years to 2 years and to introduce administrative improvements." The statement was made following a review of the HRT.

i've now had the appeal submission and it's stated that "the 'two years' point referred to arises from a speech before Parliament in 1999 which introduced a procedural easement. This policy announced in 1999 was made prior to changes in legislation, in particularly from 30/4/06." i wasn't greatly surprised by this , and it goes on to ask the tribunal to dismiss the appeal. if anyone has any bright ideas, i'd be eternally grateful...

the situation is very unsatisfactory...the statute law does not specify any time limitations on the application of the HRT, but an administrative policy is clearly necessary for the sake of efficiency and costs alone, and while commissioners carefully avoid giving rulings which usurp the role of statutes, the Sec of State is effectively doing just that with administrative policy... a 'five year' rule is as much as a 'procedural easement' as a 'two year' rule, i suppose...

is anyone aware of any more recent policy statements on this issue, or any more information on instructions to D-Ms..?

jan <floundering>

top of the week to you jan !

and thanx for your note. to answer your first point cl. i.b / i.i.d.b takes him above the £114.05 p.c wkly amount so he's not entitled as a single claimant.

i actually spoke with a person at newcastle who stated the 5 year rule but i myself thought it was two years ... tum-tee-tum indeeed !
the a8 national benefit rules are a flippin' nightmare ?

i'm glad another (sorry, that's not nice) person is having a bit of trouble with a similar scenario but it would be even nicer if the rules were a bit more clearer.

well, the world of benefits continues unabated so i'll take my leave.
if you could keep me up to speed with your case (and vice-versa) or you find anything else that may be useful it would be good to share.

have a tiptop week and laters ...

pete <also floundering, unless that's your surname ?>