R2R

I have an ongoing RTR case which is still chugging along.

My client has since put in a new claim for HB/CTB.  The hearing for both cases was adjourned earlier this month.

The judge commented that, as the law changed on 30 April, the arguments would need to be different.  I thought she was talking about A8 nationals no longer having to be in registered employment.  I’m a bit confused as, it appears to me, the arguments are the same and he still needs to prove he is genuinely and effectively self-employed or the carer of a child in education.  He definitely is not covered by any of the other categories giving people R2R despite the fact that every time I see him, I tell him to claim JSA to which he definitely is entitled but he insists that he is self-employed.

Am I missing something?  Has something else changed?

Does sound puzzling as defintiely no change in self-employment for A8 nationals or Baumbast type right to reside because of the end of the derogation - it had already been established that being a registered A8 worker could give rise to Baumbast type rights. 

Was the judge waiting for the recent Big Issue decision? Or maybe for the cases now referred by Judge Jacobs on Baumbast rights for children of self-employed EEA nationals to be heard?

You might also want to reassure your client that even if self-employed they can claim JSA during lulls in work - another Jacobs case on that issue too ([2010] UKUT 240 (AAC)) as well as one from Sir Agnew ([2010] UKUT 451 (AAC)).

Thanks for that.  The bottom line then is that success in the second appeal rests on success in the first appeal as I thought.

He seems to have a mental block when it comes to claiming JSA!

Val