Colleagues,

Para 28 of CH/4085/2007 confirms that you don't need a NINO to start a benefit claim, as long as you have applied for one before a benefit decision has taken place, care of section 1(B) of the SSAA 1992. It also confirms that claims should not be held up waiting for a NINO interview etc (para 30).

Going further, the same decision suggests to me that it doesn't even matter if you end up getting refused a NINO, as long as you have participated in the application process, and attended NINO interviews such that you can show it is a genuine NINO application. It seems the process is more important than the result. ... Here is a clip from para 27...

'...In other words, going through the process required to consider an application for a national insurance number may itself serve a purpose, without it being necessary to allocate a number at the end of it...'

Am I reading this right?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I believe you are reading it right. The NINO requirements for benefit have never said that a claim cannot be taken or benefit paid where there is no NINO.

This is one example - of many - where benefit administrators deliberately ignore the rules. Shame there's no fraud officers working on our side...

Hi Tony,

Thanks for this. Do not despair. We have the 'sword of truth, and the trusty shield of fair play' on our side (if only!)

Steve

Thanks to Steve highlighting this Commisioners decision I appear to have won an appeal for someone who was not issued with a NINo ( I have not had the decision notice yet and I will be interested to see what it says). We produced a huge amount of evidence as to identity but although it didn't satisfy the NI people at all it seems the judge (it was a paper hearing) may have felt that my client had done all that could be reasonably expected and, in line with the above decision, had therefore satisfied the requirements of the regs.

We await the DWP's response,but thanks Steve for steering us in the right direction!

My pleasure... the LASA discussion forum has dug me out of a hole many times!

Just to update - The Sec of State has asked for and recieved a statement of reasons, we await developments with interest!

That may be a bore for you if they appeal, but their response may shine a light on 'official thinking' to the case law. I believe the wording of the case law is fairly robust - we wait with excitement!

Just to bring this thread up to date;

The DWP are asking for this decsion to be set aside, but for procedural reasons not on a point of law, so it looks as if the Commissioners decision will remain unchallenged for the present at least.

As a matter of interest the procedural problem was that they were not given the opportunity to attend the hearing. My own feeling is (and with all due respects to the DWP officers involved) that I cannot see what difference their being there could have made, the Commissioners decision is pretty clear cut and they offered nothing that would counter the issues in that decision at any point in the proceedings. We continue to wait with excitement and interest!

I think there's been CD's that deal with attendance by the DWP which might help. I don't remember the references though... sorry.

"As a matter of interest the procedural problem was that they were not given the opportunity to attend the hearing."

well oh diddums, they could have asked for an oral hearing same as anyone else!