With the increase in young people living at home for longer and longer periods, isn't it about time that the rules for awarding the Severe Disability Addition are changed?

Help and advice needed:

My clients are a couple who both claim the highest rates of DLA (care and mobility.) One of my clients claims Carer's Allowance, and the other has a State Retirement Pension and an underlying entitlement to Carer's Allowance.

Clients have a 28 year old daughter who uses their property as a 'base' (it is, arguably her 'main residence'), but pursues a full time career that involves working away from home for long periods. My client has identified that, on average, her daughter is away from home 'every other week.' However, this arrangement currently stops my clients from having one Severe Disability Addition used in the calcualation of their Pension Credits. Does anyone have any advice on challenging this decision?

I'll be very grateful for help.

"However, this arrangement currently stops my clients from having one Severe Disability Addition used in the calcualation of their Pension Credits. Does anyone have any advice on challenging this decision?"

What do you mean by "one severe disability addition?"

As only one actually gets paid CA then one Severe Disability Addition would be included as well as two Carer Elements.

Don't see a way round the issue though if it is daughter's home. Where does she stay rest of time when she is away?

That is what I thought was meant. If so my understanding is as follows.

The Regs state that a claimant who has a partner is to be treated as a disabled person if, among other things, s/he has no non-dependants living with him/her.

If a claimant cannot be treated as a severely disabled person because of a non-dependant then the additional amount is not payable at all whether at the single rate or the couple rate. The provisions basically mirror the IS regime.

Reg 6(4) and (5) and schedule 1, part 1, paragraphs 1(1)(b), State Pension Credit Regs 2002.

.

Right enough. I was thinking of situation where it's just the couple and one gets paid CA and the other doesn't.


Which takes us to position of trying to get daughter excluded so that she is not treated as non-dep.

The question is "is the daughter normally residong" with the claimant (Schedule 1 Part 1 State Pension Credit Regulations). As this is a question of fact it is most important that a case such as yours is taken to appeal as this is a risk free option and one cannot predict what view of "normally residing" a tribunal will take. It may be thatthe daughter is really a visitor rather than a resident although her parents might prefer to see her a a resident.

The footnote in Wood p228 sets out the commissioners decisions you need.