Hi

I have asked for help with this case before and thanks to help given to me here I thought I had it all sorted out. If you will bear with me I will outline the case again:

My client claimed IB in August 2000 when she was 20 years old (she is now 24). She was turned down because she did have any NI contribuions and was awarded IS. She has received this continuously ever since. She fulfills all the criteria for IB under youth rules for those under 25 but in education before 20 (or so i thought). She was advised by the local DWP office (which does not handle IB claims) in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that she would not claim IB because her claim began before the rules were introduced. I contacted the office who deals with local IB claims and was told she should have claimed again in April 2001. My client submitted a claim in May this year sighting a misdirection. I contacted the office dealing with her claim only two weeks ago and was told that the claim had been sent to special payments for an ex gratia payment. Only now my client has received a letter turning down her claim and I have been told that although they acknowlage that she fulfills all the criteria, she has been turned down because she should have claimed either while stillon her course or at the latest the day after.

This seems to be nonsense as I have never read any such rule except if she were over 25, as far as I understand it she could have claimed anytime until December 2002. I am positive this decision is wrong but I would appreciate any assistance in case there is some rule I have overlooked.

Sorry for being so long winded!

Amanda

To clarify, I have received a copy of my clients letter and it states that she is not entitled to IB "because she fails to satisfy the condition of the Age Exception Rule having not attending a course immediately before the 197th day".

Can anyone clarify this for me!?

Amanda

Amanda,

For the age exception for under 25 year olds, you must have finished the course within the last 2 tax years prior to the benefit year in which you claim.

I understand that but as I said before the decision states that although she fulfills that and all other criteria, she also ought to have finished her course immediately before the relevant day. I couldn't find any reference to such a rule until I read this (3b) but I don't understand it!

Age Exception - Persons aged 20 and under 25
15. - (1) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(b) of section 30A of the Contributions and Benefits Act (prescribed cases in relation to persons aged under 25 and above the age 20 limit), a person falls within a prescribed case if he satisfies the conditions specified in the following paragraphs.

(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that, he is a person who -

(a) registered on a course of -
(i) full-time advanced or secondary education, or
(ii) vocational or work-based training,

at least 3 months before he attained the age of 20 years; and

(b) not more than one academic term immediately after registration under sub-paragraph (a), attended one or more such courses of education or training as are mentioned in that sub-paragraph in a period referred to in paragraph (3).



(3) The period mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) is a period which -

(a) began on or before a day at least 3 months before the day he attained the age of 20 years, and

(b) ended on a day -
(i) immediately before the relevant day, or
(ii) falling within one of the last two complete tax years before the benefit year which would have governed a claim for incapacity benefit under section 30A(1)(a) of the Contributions and Benefits Act had he been eligible for it,

whichever is the later.

Statutory Instrument 2000 No 3120

Could someone please explain how section 3(b) works in practice as they seem to contradict one another.

The decision maker himself has advisd my client to appeal the decision as he does not appear to understand the rules himself.

Please Help!