I don't know if anyone has any helpful tips or arguments on this case.

My client is an Italian national. He worked in Italy from 1989 until 2003. He became an Italian national in 2002. He arrived in the UK in May 2003. At the time of his arrival he had about 1500 euro. He worked in the UK from 13th Feb 04 until 13th Feb 07.

It appears that sometime after his arrival in the UK in May 2003 and before he started employment he claimed and received income-based JSA. Following the cessation of his employment he again claimed and received income-based JSA. This continued until 27th June 07.

The claimant states that he worked for a laundry service - 5 hours each day but that in the last few months of his employment this increased to 8 hours each day. However, due to general problems with his own health - back problem & managing his diabetes - he was unable to continue in his employment and it appears he received SSP for the last few weeks. However, he did not then claim income support on the basis of temporary incapacity but as stated above claimed JSA.

It appears that the claimant has had a right to reside in the UK for about 4 years - May 2003 (or soon after) until 27th June 07.

The claimant states that he cares for a friend who has suffered a stroke and is wheelchair bound. The friend was awarded DLA. The claimant claimed and has been awarded CA from 4th June 07.

The claimant made a claim for income support on or around 11th July 07 and this has been refused on 26th July 07.

As far as we can tell the claimant has taken himself out of the job market.

Does anyone have any useful hints as to what the claimant might be able to argue as to retention of his right to reside?

I've had a look at CIS/408/2006 which on first reading, although useful, does not appear to assist my client.

Hi Cliff, i dont know if you have seen the last paragraph of CIS/1121/2007 where the commissioner referring to a cliamant who was claiming IBJSA and stopped to claim IS as carer for his wife, he had CA and also the children, while the appeal was made on the basis of Baumbast the commissioner deals with the issue of caring for his wife as follows: -

The claimant has not challenged the tribunal’s finding that he had lost his status as a worker once he ceased looking for work and abandoned his claim for jobseeker’s allowance in favour of income support. That finding was plainly correct. At that point, the claimant lost the right of residence he had had until then. Accordingly, the tribunal reached the only conclusion open to it when it found that the claimant had no right of residence in the United Kingdom for the purpose of his claim for income support.

Michael,

Thanks for that - I think I had seen the decision you refer to but will take another look.

55. If ever a case called for the “certain degree of financial solidarity between nationals of a host member state and nationals of other member states” recognised in Grzelczyk, this is it. To put financial pressure on a couple to leave the United Kingdom because the wife needs temporarily to cease work to care for her husband is not consistent with a “due regard for family life and dignity”. While the United Kingdom is generally entitled to limit access to its social assistance schemes to those who have rights of residence under domestic law that is consistent with Council directives, Article 18(1) of the Treaty and the principle of proportionality require that that entitlement give way in this case to the claimant’s wife’s rights as a citizen of the Union who has been exercising the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 39 of the Treaty.

This is the last para of the decision in CIS/408/2006.

I looks quite similar to yours.

Rowland said his analysis only applies where the disability is short term

If he was to get a part-time job that was within the limits of carer's allowance hours and earnings rules, he would probably be better off than on IS, and anyway would qualify as a worker unless the amount of work was truly minimal. So he could get HB as well, if needed.