More dreaming? NINo requirement

I have had an ongoing NINo requirement issue since before Xmas.

I am sure I read somewhere that once a person who is a PSIC has got a NINo they are treated as having had one all along.

An exhaustive hunt of Findlay, Rowland and the last two editions of the CPAG Migrants’ handbooks and I can’t find it.

Did I dream it?

it’s from 2010, but any leads in here?

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/nino-requirement-updated-hbctb-guidance

Well there is no specific time limit for obtaining a benefit-inspired NINO, but it is a requirement in connection with a claim or superseding decision.  If a claim is decided or a superseding decision made on the basis that the person has not applied for a NINO when required to do so the normal time limits and grounds for revision of that decision would then apply.  For example, if a claim was refused two years ago because the claimant’s PSIC partner had no NINO, but the partner has applied for one this week, it would be too late to revise the decision made two years ago irrespective of whether a NINO is retrospective in some wider sense (eg for contributions).

But I wonder if the thing that is nagging at the back of your mind is SI 2009/471 which removed the NINO requirement for partners and adult dependants in a range of benefits where the person concerned is a PSIC by virtue of s115(9)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999?  That is, a person who requires leave but does not have it (asylum seeker, overstayer, illegal immigrant).

PS This is from 2013 UKUT 321 AAC Westminster City Council -v- AT and SSWP

Whether or not the Secretary of State could, and would, grant a national insurance number to [the claimant] (per para. 5(1) on page 138 and para. 14 on page 169), the facts as I understand them are that at the time of the May 2009 claim for housing benefit by [the claimant] no national insurance number had in fact been allocated to her nor had she applied for one (para. 5(5) on page 138). Any grant of a national insurance number to [the claimant] after the May 2009 claim or the 5.06.09 decision would not, therefore, be a circumstance obtaining at the time of the decision in June 2009 and so would have to be discounted: per paragraph 6(9)(b) in Schedule 7 to the CSPSSA and R(IS)4/04