I have a case with the Commissioner regarding entitlement to CTC as a minority carer which is likely to go live again soon following the decision in R(RJM) - one of the issues will be establishing discrimination

Does anyone know how I can get sight of the statistical report which was put before the Commissioner in Hockenjos and helped establish discrimination in the rules for JSA child additions?

Tony

Hi Tony,

I can't help with your request for the report I'm afraid.

But I also have a case of 50/50 shared care (ratified by residence order) and client is on JSA whilst ex-partner on IS with CTC.

Any chance you could give full citation for R(RJM)?

Hockenjos doesn't seem to help with my case now that child additions paid via CTC.

Thanks

Pip01

Hello Pip01

Where is your case at - tribunal or Commissioner?

R(RJM) - the judgement can be accessed throught the news item on 22/10/08, 'Homeless People & entitlement to the Disability premium' - it deals with precedent in the British courts and particularly whether 'Stec' should be followed - essential if these cases are to succeed

Hockenjos isn't directly relevent but it is a sort of parallel argument, so it's useful in considering how things are developing, and may have some direct relevance when looking at whether the government can justify the discrimination, if it is established.

Tony

Thanks for the speedy reply Tony, much appreciated.

I'm at initial stages at the moment. My client does not want to upset the applecart by applying for CHB as he has very good relationship with his ex.

However he and ex are in same boat i.e mature students on access courses leading to vocational degree courses, and he feels fairly aggrieved that his ex partner is on IS, receiving assistance through grants and childcare alowances on CTC. Whereas he is on JSA only and being hassled by the Jobcentre all the time ref his JSAG, he also finds it hard to maintain his daughter on the single person's rate of JSA.

I think a claim to CTC on shared care basis is the way forward and then to appeal, using the arguments that have been raised in Hockenjos, albeit "parallel arguments" as you succinctly put it.

If the true intention of "family policy" is to involve both parents in being responsible for children and the rise in shared care residence orders reflects this. Then the benefits system will have to reflect it as well.

Cheers

P

Absolutely agree with your last comments - administrative convenience lagging well behind social policy - there seems to be little proper research around this, although recent important study for One Parents Families/Gingerbread into contact after separation/divorce advised that such research is necessary

In my case the non-resident parent is looking after 3 children 3 days a week following court order on his IS and £18.80 CB!

Tony

Hi Tony

I take it on your case the client has managed to get IS as they have allocated the children between him and the ex?

On my case the problem is there is only one child so my client cannot claim IS at all and is getting real problems with JSA regarding his JSAG etc.

I'll keep you posted on how it progresses and I'd be really interested to know how yours goes.

Cheers

Pip01