I have a client who was living on her own and recieving the SDP within her pension credit entitlement. Because she no longer could care for herself she moved to live with her daughter who became her main carer. The Department took away the SDP immediaely and I appealed on the basis that she should have been paid the SDP for a further 12 weeks in accordance with SPC Regs 2002 Schedule 1 Part 1paragraph 2 sub-paras 3 +4.....Sub para 3/4 says that the 12 week is appropriate where ''a person joins a claimants household for the first time in order to care'' .My argument was that the carer had joined the claimants household even though the claimant had actually moved in to the carers house. The Departments view was that the term household relates to 'bricks and mortar' and the Regs say that the carer must move in to the claimants house for this Reg to apply. I cant accept that even after losing the appeal. I have an identical appeal next week and wonder if anyone has experienced this type of case before. Thanks in advance.

Hi Jerry

It is trite law (for benefits) that household is not the same as house. There can be more than one household in one house, for example. The developed case law on living together as husband and wife is replete with examples of what can constitute a household. A household usually connotes some feature of commonality among its members and is something separate from merely shared occupation of a dwelling.

Regards
Paul