I would have thought that the self-employed route is the way to go - see the recent discussion of how Article 43 describes the required behaviour of a self-employed person, rather than any requirement to be self supporting.
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=7059&mesg_id=7059&page=
Although Article 43 does not refer to the lawfulness of the working arrangements (ie the payment of tax and NI as a self-employed person), I think the situation as described might strain the liberalism of the JC+ to breaking point, if claim was pushed too hard, on this basis. Irrespective of possible rescue via a subsequent tribunal etc, much better for the chap to get his self-employed house in order, maybe along the lines that Damian suggests.
If he is self-employed, he may be able to claim IBJSA himself and partner as a top up (see the abovementioned thread for arguably supportive case law). As has been mentioned, there could be alternative access to benefits from her, as a family member of a self employed person, subject to his hours and pay.
Whether it would be possible to to alternatively argue they are sufficiently 'self sufficient' to attain RTR is interesting. Damian refers to CB and CTC, but what about HB/CTB? Reg 10(3A) of the HB Regs does not exclude self sufficient persons, and although para 4 of the same reg does not specifically include them, Reg 4 is not a closed list. Maybe I have got it all wrong, but I wonder if you could be sufficiently self sufficient to avoid IS/IBJSA etc, and yet still be able to access HB/CTB? Thoughts?
Steve
|