When you claim benefit (including HB/CTB) you have to satisfy the NINO requirement. My client is claiming HB/CTB as a couple. He is a British citizen with a NINO, but partner is from abroad (Jamaica) with immigration restrictions, and no NINO. Partner was refused a NINO by DWP due to immigration restriction, and she is not permitted to recourse to public funds, hence HB/CTB claim failed. My client tried to chnage his claim to a single claim, but was not permitted to do so. He is quite ill, but he is forced to work all hours to pay the rent and support his child and partner. The client has already been awarded discretionary housing payments. He complained to the MP, but the Council said if they agree to pay the HB without the claim satisfying the NINO requirement, it would be an illegal act on the Council's part. This requirement seems to discrimintae against certain ethnics. Any thoughts and advice how I can progress this case.

I'm a lit bit confused. You state his HB/CTB claim failed but you also say that he has been awarded discretionary housing payments. Surely he should only receive a discretionary payment if he is receiving HB/CTB?

On the issue of the NINO allocation.

This kind of thing offends against all sense of common decency and natural justice. That a British citizen might lose his home through no fault of his own and that there is nothing he can do about it and the State says it cannot help him out because his wife is a person from abroad is bloody scandalous and would outrage the overwhelming majority of citizens.

Section 1(1B)(b) of the Admin Act says that an application for a NINO must have been made “accompanied by information or evidence enabling such a number to be so allocated”. The section does not say that the number HAS to be so allocated. I know that the language of the section may not be so severed where the context requires it, and, there appears to be a link between the application for the NINO and its allocation.

However, I think that where the number would be allocated except for the existence of some other provision outside the statute which prevents that allocation then the statute should be read as satisfied and the HB claim allowed to be made.

I cannot in all seriousness accept that the effect in this case was what Parliament had in mind when enacting the section

R(H) 7/06, the lead case on this issue, was one where no application for a NINO had been made at all and so is distinguished. The remedy for that couple was for her to go away and apply for one.

Even if I am wrong about the interpretation of section1(1B)(b) then paragraph 39 of R(H) 7/06 states: -

“The Secretary of State has made clear that a national insurance number can
be applied for, and will be allocated, irrespective of any intention to work and
without any conflict with a visa condition prohibiting a person from working in this
country. The use of a national insurance number has a non-work-related function in
the control of fraud in benefit claims. That view is supported by the contents of an
internal departmental document, referred to as the “SNAP Allocation Procedure] Code”, which contains guidance to officials on the operation
of the relevant administrative arrangements. Thus, it was open to Mrs Wilson to
apply for a national insurance number (as she eventually did) without prejudicing her
immigration status or her application for leave to remain. The advice to the contrary
that she received from her solicitors was in practice mistaken. It is true that the use of
a national insurance number for this purpose may give rise to misunderstanding, as it
did with Mrs Wilson’s solicitors, and that the issue of a national insurance number
could even encourage people to take work in breach of their visa conditions, but I do
not think that this can be regarded as creating any real unfairness”.

There is clearly room for further argument here.

Previously, the client was receiving HB/CTB, but his circumstances changed when his partner moved in with him. He re-applied on basis of his changed circumstances. I believe that this is how the local authority awarded him DHP, but refused his subsequent application for DHP or HB.

I had a similar case, where my client was a British citizen and in reciept of HB. Her partner, a South African overstayer, moved in with her and her HB stopped. He made a claim for a NINO but was refused on the grounds that he couldn't provide evidence of his right to work in the UK.

We challenged this on the grounds that for a 'benefits inspired claim' for a NINO the person does not need to show that they have the right to work. A NINO was then allocated and HB was re-instated.

There's a link to the NINO allocation guidance (SNAP) in the toolkit section, which you may find useful.

Thanks - I think there's hope yet. I will try this.