I'd be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction RE this...

Clients are a couple, both aged 16 yrs, with new baby. Female client is in relevant eductaion doing GCSEs, male client has left school and is looking after the baby. Both living with female client's mum, who is still claiming CB and CTC for female client. Female client is claiming CB and CTC for the baby. Male client has claimed IS for them but has been refused. Jobcentre has said he must claim JSA and include female client as his partner.

Having looked at the IS regs I think female client should claim the IS, as parent of a child for whom she is responsible, and as she is in relevant education - assuming her mum stops claiming CB and CTC. I am assuming that male client can be included on her IS claim. Does this sound right?

Just initial thoughts I'm afraid...

It doesn't sound right. Mostly because if the mother is still claiming for female client as a dependant, then she must claim for her grandchild as her dependant too and that changes everything...

I've done better off calcs for young parents in similar situations and it usually works out better for the grandparent to do the claiming, but a detailed review of the circs is required.

Tony

Hi - the problem here is that whilst the mother is getting CB for the female client, the female client cannot get IS, as you know. So you are right that the mother would have to stop her claims, although you can in fact argue that the young person's claim for IS takes precedence over her mother's CB claim for her (this would take time!). However, Tony is right in that generally speaking in situations like this, they get slightly more money if the grandparent claims. I'd want to sit down and double check first, though.

I don't see why they cannot continue as they are (with grandparent claiming) and the young dad claim JSA, getting the single person rate only (because his partner is not, whilst CB is in payment for her, a person who would get IS if she were to claim it).

The alternative would be for the mother to stop all claims for the female client, or for the female client to make a 'competing' IS claim which I think should be preferred, but as I say this does warrant a better off calc and also some thinking about the family set up (does the mother get benefits for any other dependants? How will it affect her income - would it be risky for the young people if the mother was not happy with the change etc etc).

IMPORTANT CORRECTION! Sorry folks. I've just found something which indicates, I think, that the Jobcentre are right.

You cannot get CB or CTC for a young person who is cohabiting, unless the partner is in relevant education/training (reg 12 of CB regs; reg 3 rule 4.1 Case G CTC regs). So in fact, here we do not have a choice between the grandparent claiming and the young people claiming. It has to be the young people.

IS is not possible. The female client is not entitled to IS because she is not an estranged young person in full-time education. It has to be JSA (assuming the baby is more than 15 weeks old - after that they would have to go onto JSA anyway). Only one of them need meet the jobseeking conditions, but that's as good as it gets.

The situation as it is really isn't right. CB and CTC for the young female should not be in payment, AND as Tony mentioned, there's something wrong here anyway as you can't get CTC for a young person who claims CTC in her own right, so I would question whether the young person is actually claiming CTC for her baby or it is in fact an addition to the grandparent's CTC.

In any case, although I'd usually agree that this is a better-off situation with a choice, unfortunately it looks like that is not so because of the cohabitation.

Apologies for posting earlier before I'd looked things up - classic.

RH

PS - actually, still not quite correct. I've now come round to agree with Nicky. Why can't the young female client claim IS as she is in f/t ed and responsible for a child. However, I'm not sure it's worth challenging, as isn't the effect the same: if they are on IS, the young male client still has to sign on etc (and be in 'severe hardship'?) in order to get the couple rate (as they are both under 18). So they might as well claim JSA, as the young man will have to go through exactly the same hoops anyway, unless I've missed something.

That's nearly enough for a Saturday afternoon.. although please see my own post for any thoughts on that.