I have a student who is 18 years old, in relevant education, and estranged from parents. None of this is in dispute. Jobcentre Plus are saying IS can only be claimed under these circumstances up to 18th birthday. Beyond that "adult" rules apply. Is this right? Relevant education can continue to 19th birthday, and I can't see any reason under IS reg 13 why he cannot get IS. JC+ are saying that the only way he can get any benefit is if the course is under 16hrs/wk and he claims JSA.

IS can be claimed up until the student's 19th birthday if the student is estranged from family and in relevant education i.e. on a full-time course (12+ per week) of non-advanced education e.g up to and including A level standard/NVQ3. Jobcentre Plus needs to train its staff better!

There's a bit more to this one.

Is the young person in school or college? If in school the course can be classified as f-time, ie more than 12 hpw.

However, if in college on a course totally or partly funded by the Learning and Skills Council the course has to be 16+ hours of guided learning per week to be classified as a f-t course.

The number of guided learning hours is set out in the student's learning agreement. This is signed by the student and the college and the DWP uses this agreement to decide whether or not a student is on a full-time course.If the course is treated as full-time, the student can receive Income Support up until the 19th birthday.

See CPAG 04-05 Welfare benefits and tax credits handbook, pages 614 and 618.

Thanks for the reassurance, both. He is (or was) at college doing a foundation course so he could join the army. By the time I got involved he had had a WFI for IS at the local JC+ office and been told he could not get IS, so did not proceed with the claim. Because he had no means of support he withdrew from the course and now has a JSA interview on Friday. The staff member at the local JC+ office was uncertain of his entitlement to IS at the time of his interview so correctly contacted the IS "accuracy team" at district office, and acted on their wrong advice. I'm not sure we can get him back on the course so his short/mid term career/life may have been adversely affected.

Sorry Camdenunder25s but I disagree with you there.

Relevant education is a specific definition for those under 19 and efectively mirrors the Child Benefit rules. Therefore full time for these purposes means 12 hours per week as long as it is not an advanced course ie is below degree level, NVQ4, HND and the like. I doubt if a foundation course enabling a student to join the army would count as advanced.

Therefore I think Hilary Jordan hit the nail on the head. Sugest reading p614 of CPAG book which has defn of relevant education.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember Gordon Brown mentioning this issue in the last Budget speech - that 19 yr olds were going to be allowed to finish their relevant education before their benefits were stopped. Is that my memory playing tricks on me or has anybody got any info on this extension and its likely implementation?
Sue

related info and links here -

Extending benefit entitlement to parents of children in unwaged training: Government reaffirms commitment

Andy, I think you may have misunderstood.

To re-emphasise - if the course is totally or partly funded by the Learning and Skills Council then it has to be 16+ hours of guided learning per week.

Page 614 about relevant education is not relevant in such a case. Try page 618.

Wish it wasn't all so complicated and we're looking forward to the
regulations being changed.

Sorry, totally disagree again. You only count as a 'full time student' if you are under 19 and on an advanced course ie degree level and the like, or if you are 19 or over and on a course of full time study. (p617) It is in this latter head where your definition of full time, 16 hrs guided learning and funding from LSC comes in.

If you are under 19 and on a non advanced course then full time means 12 hours or over and is called 'relevant education' (p614).

As the author of Ch 24 CPAG - from the info given about the client - I suggest that he is in relevant education, he is not a student p614-614 applies 617 - 618 does not. If person is attending a non-advanced course then the 'student' rules only apply from 19th birthday. DWP staff often confuse the 19 relevant education limit with the special rules for 16-17 year olds whicn obviously end at 18.

It would make the chapter much easier to write if they simplified the rules (and stopped changing them every year!).

Thank you, Andy and Peter . We thought we were going mad.
We always acted on the 12+ hours being relevant education. Well, makes sense, doesn't it, tying in with Ch.B. and EMAs.

However, all our DWP offices kept insisting and wouldn't budge.

So thanks, everybody, we're all set to change their minds and get it right.

I'm delivering a training course on this very subject next week so quite relieved that I'd understood it correctly! Benefits for 16/17 yr olds is absolutely brain bending, looks like Peter got the short straw when they were handing out chunks of the CPAG book to write...