Travelling family comprising mother and 5 dependent children. Were living in caravan on static site, she was getting IS as lone parent, then towed the caravan to an indudtrial estate with no address. Registered a c/o address with JCP who then stopped IS as they say you cannot be a lone parent with NFA. Presumably this is because for IS the children have to be members of the household, and DWP are effectively saying you cannot have a household with no fixed address. IS reg 16 says a child is a member of the household if the adult is responsible for them, and reg 15 defines responsible as iro Child Benefit. There are exceptions, none of which apply so far as I can see, and there is no requirement for a fixed address.

Am I missing something?

The term household isn't usually defined with regard to an actual dwelling, rather than to the persons that make up a household so no, I don't think your missing anything.

As far as I know, but I haven't had the time to look anything up, it's only premiums (only disability perhaps) that is directly affected by having NFA?

This is just plain wrong. In CIS/671/1992 the commissioner stated that "(i)t seems to me from, the dictionary definition of "household" referred to in the Pizzey case and indeed as a matter of what might be said to be obvious, that something more than mere presence in a place is necessary before those present can be said to constitute a household; there must be, I should have thought, some collectivity, some communality, some organisation. As was said in Santos v Santos (1972) A11ER247 at 255 "household" is "a word which essentially refers to people held together by a particular kind of tie, even if temporarily separated". Furthermore, it appears to be of the essence of "household" that there is something which can be identified as a domestic establishment. In CSB/463/1986 it was said (para 10) "It is a question of fact in each case which turns on the evidence concerning the domestic establishment maintained; the test is sociality not structive". So one might have a domestic establishment in for example a hotel or boarding house - but there must be a domestic establishment".

So, in essence, household usually connotes some degree of commonality and domestic establishment. It has nothing to do with actual address. It is the caravan that is the domestic establishment, not the industrial estate.

That last sentence is badly worded. It reads better as "(i)t is the caravan that contains the domestic establishment, not the industrial estate". Nor the long and winding road for that matter!

You are right in saying the responsibility for a child rests with receipt of CB and I agree that reg 16 doesn't apply. However, entitlement for lone parents is via para 1 of schedule 1B which defines a lone parent who is responsible for a child who is a member of the claimants household - hence the definition of household helpfully provided by our learned friend.

But this still leaves something of a gap for your client. She maintains responsibility for the children who are, presumably, not yet taken into care. The caselaw posted by Nevip certainly does agree with my earlier thought that it is membership of the household that is the key factor. The introduction of the 'domestic establishment' in CSB/463/1986 seems to be secondary to the social relationship of the household, but I read nothing there that refers the domestic establishment being permanent. Your client must be sleeping somewhere, so for the period that they are there, that place must be the family's 'domestic establishment'. We've all had client's sleeping on friend's floors. If you take a very broad view, you might even say that someone's 'domestic establishment' is a cardboard box on the village green! If you replace box with tent, it doesn't seem that far fetched.

In short, I don't think it's quite so clear cut and it might well be worth pursuing the claim although, sadly, that won't help in the short term.

Has the client made the usual housing applications or contacted social services?

After all that, I've just realised that I misread the original post - I hadn't noticed that it was the caravan that had moved. Saw NFA and assumed homeless...