had a person in to see me today who has been getting CTB based on IB and small occ pen - aged 62 and income too high for PC. His fiancee joined him in Feb 08 on a 'marriage/cp' visa' with no recourse to public funds stipulation and requirement that she applies for further leave when married. They got married 20th June and he had informed local authority of her presence in April 08. authority have included her in his claim but refused benefit as she has no Nino. They have though taken away his 25% discount from Feb 08.
I've read SofS v Wilson and it seems the authority is entitled to ask for a Nino. but it seems to me that if she applied for one this would then mean he would indirectly get more benefit because of her via more generous applicable amount being applied and the fact CT liablity has risen so CTB will rise. If that's the case they could jeopardise her further application to remain. Seems unfair.
Any specialists out there who would conclude differently?
Cheers, Brian.

I'm not aware of any CDs that would support the line of argument suggested below, but I think it's well worth testing.

Wilson confirmed that the NINO requirement applied for both husband AND partner. So far, nothing controversial.

However, the wording of s.1A & s.1B of the SSAA 1992 is, arguably, a bit wishy washy. There isn't a doubt that the NINO requirement must be met at the time of the claim. However, in the case described, the partner joined the H/H. This is a change of circumstances demanding only a supersession of an existing award. That has nothing to do with the claim.

As the law currently stands, once a decision has been made on a claim (i.e the very first decision), the claim ceases to exist per para 2 of Sch 7 of the CSPSSA 2000 - support for this view exists in CH/0269/2006). Any entitlement becomes an award.

Therefore, is it not arguable that the NINO requirement only needs to be satisfied at the point at which a claim is made; not subsequently?

I have no idea what degree of success, if any, you will get. I'm pretty confident that the above was not intended by the DWP, but it wouldn't be the first time legislation has been intended to say one thing, but means something else entirely.