Forum Home → Discussion → Benefits for older people → Thread
PC for mixed age couple with partner with NRPF
Good afternoon,
We have a mixed age couple where working age partner has NRPF so pension age client can claim PC.
Partner has earnings. Everything I have researched states any income or capital for partner is disregarded but I cant find a legitimate source for this such as the PC regulation. Please can anyone help?
Thanks
Paula
Think it’s Article 7(3)(b) of the CO.31.
3) Where this paragraph applies—
(b)P who is to be treated as single in accordance with paragraph (2)(a)(i) to (iii), or is single in accordance with paragraph (2)(b)(i), is to be treated as though P is not a member of the same household as any party (or parties) with whom P is not part of a couple in accordance with those provisions and may claim or remain entitled to housing benefit as a single person,
Where restriction on claiming UC as a couple applies, as with your client, then the older partner is (1) treated as a single person for PC/HB purposes but also importantly, the other partner is not to be treated as a member of the same household so no aggregation of resources. For reasons I haven’t got time to think through, this only mentions HB and not PC specifically but the explanatory notes are clear:
Where each of the parties treated as a couple, or a party treated as single, has attained the qualifying age for state pension credit, article 7(3) provides that they be treated in that capacity for claims to or awards of state pension credit and housing benefit for those of state pension credit qualifying age.
For reasons I haven’t got time to think through, this only mentions HB and not PC specifically
It’s in Reg 5(3) to (5) of the main SPC Regs 2002, I suppose because a PSIC partner has always been excluded from the household in an SPC case under Reg 5(1)(h) and it made efficient drafting sense to extend the scope of Reg 5 for those MACs.
For reasons I haven’t got time to think through, this only mentions HB and not PC specifically
It’s in Reg 5(3) to (5) of the main SPC Regs 2002, I suppose because a PSIC partner has always been excluded from the household in an SPC case under Reg 5(1)(h) and it made efficient drafting sense to extend the scope of Reg 5 for those MACs.
Thanks Peter, I knew the answer was out there somewhere :-)