Well yes and no. The QYP definition is lifted from the child benefit legislation, but the non payment of child benefit is not necessarily conclusive.
In CH/2812/2008 Judge Turnbull found at paragraphs 4 and 5
4. Vanita reached the age of 18 on 5 June 2006. As I understand it she left school at the end of the summer term in 2006, and then enrolled at a College for a course leading to a BTEC in the National Diploma, Art and Design: see p.13. As I understand it that course is not “advanced education” within the definition in reg. 1(3) of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006.
5. As I see it (although my view cannot of course be binding on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because they are not a party to this appeal) child benefit should therefore have continued in payment for Vanita whilst she was doing that course: see sections 141 and 142 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and reg. 3 of the 2006 Regulations. Under the definition in those provisions, Vanita continued to be a “qualifying young person” so long as she was in full-time non-advanced education. However, child benefit in fact ceased being paid for Vanita as from (as I understand it) about the end of August 2006. I presume that the Revenue must have been under the impression that Vanita’s new course was advanced education
It seems that in HB the determination of a QYP is a determination of fact for the Council and not necessarily dependant on a parallel determination by HMRC in deciding entitlement to child benefit.
This does of course not help the present claimant as the question of full time non advanced education seems clear cut