Hi all,

I'm looking to check something out.

If someone in reciept of income support wishes to take a temporary absence from the UK (in my case a 4 week holiday to Australia to see family members before a pacemaker operation later in the year) then there is provision in Reg 4 of the IS(General)Regs to allow IS to be paid for the first four weeks of any temporary absence.

One of the criteria is that on the day the absence begins she had satisfied the provisions of paragraph 7 of Sch 1B of the IS Gen Regs (persons incapable of work) for a continuous period of 364 days or 196 days if terminally ill or recieving HRC of DLA.

The above schedule refers to the SSCAB Act, ss 171D and 171E, which further refer to IW Regs 1995. However, my client is in receipt of SDA, which I cannot find any reference to. I'm assuming that commonsense would dictate that she would be treated as incapable of work for the purposes of para 7 of Sch 1B by being in receipt of SDA, but I would need the legislative references to back me up, as the local office have already told her that if she were to go on the 4 week holiday, she would lose her IS.

Any help would be great,

Lee

Hi Big Lee,

Not sure if this helps.

Would one way to consider this issue be to think about it 'the other way round' - why is your client currently accepted as a person who is a 'prescribed category of person' eligible for IS under Schedule 1B?

Would the reason be, not that she recieves SDA per se, but that one of the qualifying conditions for recieving SDA was that you were either incapable of work or treated as incapable of work (see Section 68 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992).

Presuming that your client was aged 20 or over on 6 April 2001, and to be able to continue to recieve SDA she would also need to have remained incapable of work from that date (see page 536 of the current CPAG handbook).

On this basis she would 'fit into' paragraph 7 of Schedule 1B.

SDA was abolished in 2001, which must mean your client was in reciept of it at that time, so would'nt she inevitably have been incapable of work for 'no less than 364 days' and therefore meet the criteria for bing paid IS for 4 weeks of temporary absence abroad under paragraph 4(2)(v)(bb) of Regulation 4 IS Regs?

Cheers Ken, that was basically the way I thought I would have to end up arguing it. I was just hoping that I could find a nice clear legislative provision somewhere which would clearly state what I wanted it to state! Ah well, things are never that easy, eh?

Thanks for the response,

Lee