I have an appeal pending for a now aged 18 year old boy. He left the parental home on early Summer 2003 and has been living in the household of a school friend initially he used his savings and then in September went to make a claim for Benefit.

The father of the schoolfriend has been very understanding and supportive but he does not want to take on a formal parental role and claim the child benefit and related benefits.

The boy is staying on in full time education, is doing very well and has been offered a university place for September 2004 with part sponsorship.

The problem I have is that he is very 'deep' and reserved and does not want to confide on what made him leave home apart from the fact that he states that he is determined that he cannot go back to live there and that he cannot resolve the difficulties. In his appeal letter he states he had threats from his father. But does not elaborate
He has been visiting regularly (about 1Xweek) and also talks to his mother on the phone occassionally
The decision maker submits a short note she has phoned the mother who states that she would like the boy to come back home but that he refuses to return. The mother states that he left because he has much more freedom now. No statement or mention of the father's role is given.


MY QUESTIONS In how far would the boy have to confide/disclose what happened or what the relation ship breakdown with his father is?

My opinion is that 1. I should not contact the parents 2. I should also not force the boy to have to tell the Tribunal chair what happens or having to submit other people statements if he confided to them.

Sorry, for the long discourse any comments very welcome as I feel stuck in casesI had before the young people were willing to make more detailed statements

I think the difficulty may be the phrase used in IS Reg 13(1)(d) which says the claimant has "of necessity" to live away from his parents.

There seems to be an old case, R(SB)2/87,which apparently talks about estrangement having "connotations of emotional disharmony", and that it can exist although financial support is being provided. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be available on the internet.

The commentary on page 235 of Social Security Legislation Vol II 2003, talks of the need to show that as of a result of the estrangement, at least partly, has of necessity to live away from his parents.

While the fact that he seems to "get on better" with his mother would not disbar him, it may be difficult for your client to show his estrangement from his father means of necessity he cannot live at home, if he remains completely silent as to why.

I have emailed R(SB)2/87 for publication on Rightsnet.

It is a real shame that your client is silent as to the cause of the estrangement from his father, but people have all sorts of reasons for their silence.

Those experiencing sexual abuse could be examples that immediatley come to mind. (I have had 2 such clients in the last 6 months)

thanks to stainsby, here's R(SB)2/87

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/R_SB_2_87.pdf

DWP routinely apply a stricter standard of evidence than they should for young people. In R(SB)33/85 and R(I) 2/51 the standard of proof for evidence by claimant evidence was establsihed as being that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a claimant's word should be accepted unless it is either self-contradictory or inherently improbable.

DWP's standard approach of checking with parents (undesirable in itself where there may have been abuse or mistreatment- which sounds as if it is the situation here)and insisting that young people reveal intimate details is therefore unlawful given the caselaw above. The DWP's approach is predicated upon the Daily Mail type notion that young people just try it on in order to get money out of the system by saying they can't live at home - something not borne out by either research findings nor the experience of people working with young people.

So DWP could accept his word that it is just not possible to return home, especially given that he has mentioned threats from his father. Even though he visits regularly and his mother is happy for him to return, this should not defeat the estangement concept - it is of course quite possible to visit and have contact but to be so emotionally at odds that living together is not possible/desirable.

I accept that your client is very reticent - can you get any third party evidence about why he should not return home? Can you provide evidence of what he has said to you? If there has been any abuse, it would explain his reticence and DWP staff usually seem to display next to no insight into such matters. Also the length of time he has now lived away from home is, by itself, additional evidence of estrangement (even it's not compelling evidence of "necessity").

Can he give you consent to contact his school and could they provide any useful evidence? eg any improvement in his attendance or work since he left home which could help underpin any argument about "of necessity". What has he told school staff about why he left home or if he was unhappy there before?

Has he claimed an Education Maintenace Allowance? Disregarded for IS and a little bit of money in the meantime.

Finally, given the possible abuse, shouldn't you also talk to Social Services? Ultimately we are talking about a minor and the need to protect them and any younger siblings, which is generally taken to be an exception to the normal rules about confidentiality.

I agree with Neil Bateman and would add that R(I)2/51 and R(SB)33/85 are available on Rightsnet

R(I)2/51 is @ http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/2_51.pdf

R(SB)33/85 is @ http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/33_85.pdf

Thanks very much for your suggestions.

I am applying for an early hearing date and hope that the school can give some evidence. My client also has some continuing good school results So, that in itself should do away with some of the DWP prejudices that he only wanted to be away to have more freedom because he remained self disciplined to learn which after such a long time does show a lot of maturity.

I am also more confident to use the uncorroberated evidence argument
because I feel that this is more often being squeezed out but by you suggesting it I can see it is still valid