howdo !

and continuing on from my last entry ...

cl. now working 12 hours per week.
i have read somewhere that you can argue someone is economically active if even only working part-time, ie : less than 16 hours per week ?

can they now claim c.t.c, h.b / c.t.b now ?

hope this makes sense ? ? ?

have a good tuesday all !

pete

if you have a copy of the current CPAG Handbook see page 1400 under "Who is a worker", this tells you that you should be treated as a worker for the purposes of reg 1612/68 if you are an EU national (non UK) and: you are working full or part-time. Any geniune and effective work should count, so long as it is not .......... a purely marginal and ancillary activety.

Actually that's not a direct quote but you get the picture. Also have a look at the discussion thread on I.S. as there is a similar query and the first answer quotes case law to show that 13 hours a week is acceptable.

I'm fairly sure I've read elsewhere that 12 hours a week, or even less, may be sufficient but I can't quite recall where.

cheers chris !

and thanks for the info. sources, do'h ! will advise cl. to do so immediately.

will try to be of help to you one day.

pete

here we are again, happy as can be ? ? ?

off the cuff quick q. ?

has anyone got any experience of any cases where an adviser could argue that to deny an a8 national i.s, c.t.c as a lone parent is discriminatory under article 12 of the human rights treaty.

my cl. is from hungary and has been in uk since 2000 and only attempted to live on public funds alone on 11/10/07 after she separated from her partner and had to look after their child.
i've read somewhere that it can be argued that an a8 national does not automatically lose the status of worker in this instance but it is a very complex area of uk law.

cl. has completed 12 months registered work with home office.

thanx all ...

p

Hi Pete

The problem with article 14 of the Human Rights Act is that it is not a freestanding provision under which a challenge can be brought. One of the other articles must be engaged. By the way there does not have to be a breach of the other article so long as it is engaged.

The article that would be engaged in such a case would be Article 1 of Protocol 1 (non interference with property). The right under A1P1 is, however, a qualified right. This allows a state a wide margin of appreciation in how it applies its laws. So where a state can demonstrate a legitimate policy aim behind a law and that the law is a proportionate response to the problem the law seeks to control then the courts will be very, very slow to interfere.

Regards
Paul

hi paul !
good to know your still in the land of the welfare state ...

so, what you're saying is that to proceed with an appeal on this ground is a no-go because it will be ruled that uk law is resonable in this instance, ie :
a person needs to be claiming j.s.a, or working (part-time) to be treated as a worker, and, or economically active.

any further thoughts sir, greatly appreciated.

take it easy man !

pete

Not a no go, just extremely difficult.