Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
HB & CTB - Proof of partners NI No
Good morning,
I would be grateful for any suggestions as not sure if I am correct? I have a client who is a full time student and has one dependant. She was receiving some HB and CTB.
She recently married and her husband has moved in with her. Her husband is subject to immigration control and has been granted temporary admission. He is not allowed to work and has to report to an immigration officer each month.
Our client’s entitlement to HB and CTB has stopped. The reason given is that she cannot provide a NI No for her husband. However, he is not allowed to work, he is waiting for a decision to be made regarding his stay in the UK, he receives no money at all not even from NASS. Therefore, I do not believe he can apply for a NI No at present.
I am sure I read some law or reg’s somewhere a while ago where the DWP or LA’s were not allowed to refuse benefit or stop benefit because a partner cannot show they have a NI No.
Client has provided evidence of her husband’s identification etc. I do not want to appeal against the decision until I know for definite what the law is as I do not want to risk his temporary stay in the UK, as I think there are consequences if he becomes a burden to the system.
Am I right any information would be much appreciated??
Thanks
Hi
CPAG P.1384 oulines the criteria under which a claiment is exempt from the requirement to provide a NI number for a partner ie. If they are a person subject to Immigration Control, haven’t previously been given a NINO and for HB/CTB purposes are not regarded as habitually resident.
However, I would be concerned how claiming HB/CTB could impact on any no recourse conditions for the husband and how this may affect a future application for leave. The way that I understand it, as HB/CTB applications have to be made as a joint claim when the claiment is living with a partner, the absence of the 25% reduction for CT purposes due to the husband living at the property would mean that any award of CTB would therefore be paying an extra amount for the husband as it is based on the total Council Tax liability, and therefore result him having recouse to public funds. Similarly, unless HB is passported though a means tested benefit (assuming not as full time student and no longer lone parent?) this would also mean a calculaton based on the couple rate so any payment would include an extra amount for the husband.
Hi
CPAG P.1384 oulines the criteria under which a claiment is exempt from the requirement to provide a NI number for a partner ie. If they are a person subject to Immigration Control, haven’t previously been given a NINO and for HB/CTB purposes are not regarded as habitually resident.
However, I would be concerned how claiming HB/CTB could impact on any no recourse conditions for the husband and how this may affect a future application for leave. The way that I understand it, as HB/CTB applications have to be made as a joint claim when the claiment is living with a partner, the absence of the 25% reduction for CT purposes due to the husband living at the property would mean that any award of CTB would therefore be paying an extra amount for the husband as it is based on the total Council Tax liability, and therefore result him having recouse to public funds. Similarly, unless HB is passported though a means tested benefit (assuming not as full time student and no longer lone parent?) this would also mean a calculaton based on the couple rate so any payment would include an extra amount for the husband.
Hi Thanks for your response, that is what I was thinking, it could do more harm than good. It does state in CPAG that a claim should not be refused simply because someone cannot provide a NI No, however like you say by having recourse to public funds this may have an affect on his application for leave in the UK.
Oh what to do, I have an appeal ready but not sure if an appeal is the right route I this case?? Specialist advice required I think!!
Thanks
You have a problem here because a full time student is generally not eligible to receive HB, but a single parent is an exception.
As she is no longer a single parent, she may no longer be one of the exceptions who are entitled to HB unless she fits the criteria for one of the other exceptions, eg she qualifies for the disability premium.
With couples where one is a student, the non student could be eligible for HB, but in this case the non student is not eligible because he is subject to immigration control
You have a problem here because a full time student is generally not eligible to receive HB, but a single parent is an exception.
As she is no longer a single parent, she may no longer be one of the exceptions who are entitled to HB unless she fits the criteria for one of the other exceptions, eg she qualifies for the disability premium.
With couples where one is a student, the non student could be eligible for HB, but in this case the non student is not eligible because he is subject to immigration control
Hi,
Yes I thought this, however this is not the reason the LA cancelled the payment of HB. It is because the client failed to provide her husbands NI No and income details.
Client advised the LA that her husband was living with her in May 2010, however they continued to pay her until November 2010. They have now cancelled the payments and the decision is that she has been overpaid since May 2010, but for the reasons above??
I am very confused? I will challenge the decision on different grounds. As she advised the LA in May 2010 that she was living with her husband the OP is not recoverable as is was paid in error on their part. Well that makes the case a whole lot less complicated!!
Thank you.
You cannot be held to have failed to provide evidence that does not exist, and so the LA does not have a case on the grounds stated.
If they continued to pay kowing fine well that your client is an ineligible student, that is clearly an official error.
Your client cannot resonably be expected to understand those technicalities and as there appears to be no significant increase in income following the change, I cannot see how the overpayments can be recoverable