AA stopping due to Lithuanian pension

Hi there
I’ve just received an email from a client attaching a letter that her mother has received from AA.  The letter states that the AA is stopping from 10/07/17 as she is receiving a pension from Lithuania.

Has anyone had experience of this?  The pension is due to retirement and not sickness.  She’s been in the UK for 8 years and has received AA for the last 6 years.

Many thanks

Yes - under the co-ordination rules, as the provider of a pension (including retirment pension) Lithuania will be the competent state for payment of sickness benefits, and will be responsible for the reimbursement of any NHS treatment. An exception will only arise if the cl is also entitled to a SRP from the UK.

This is probably due to the EU ‘competent state’ rules see : http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/european-nationals-and-sickness-benefits

Briefly if she receives a pension from another EU state then that state is the state that should pay sickness benefits - AA is classed as a sickness benefit. Her AA claim should be passed to Lithuanian to assess her entitlement to any Lithuanian sickness benefits.

Thank you!  Unsure why they have allowed 6 years of AA…what if Lithuania doesn’t pay?  Can they refuse or choose not to?

JojoMitchell - 26 July 2017 05:18 PM

Thank you!  Unsure why they have allowed 6 years of AA…what if Lithuania doesn’t pay?  Can they refuse or choose not to?

This CPAG article includes a bit on what should happen when there is a dispute about which is the competent state. NB that’s over a year old, I think there has been further caselaw since.

It’s possible that the claimant will not meet all the domestic conditions of entitlement laid down by the competent state, and so could not be entitled to disability benefit from either state. CG/2034/2016 illustrates that possibility.

Thank you.  Rang CPAG for advice and am awaiting the decision from AA.  It might be arguable that as she receives Pension Credit the UK is the competent state.

JojoMitchell - 27 July 2017 01:50 PM

Thank you.  Rang CPAG for advice and am awaiting the decision from AA.  It might be arguable that as she receives Pension Credit the UK is the competent state.

I can see from the bottom on page 274 of CPAG MIgrants Handbook 8th edition that this line of possible argument is advanced.

However, I can’t find any of the cases referenced in the footnotes - anyone know where they can be found please?

Perry v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998]
EC v SSWP (SPC) [2010] UKUT 95 (AAC)
IG v SSWP [2016] UKUT 176 (AAC)

I still find these new references verging on the impossible to find quite frankly and long for the days of CIS/176/2006…

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 27 July 2017 02:51 PM

However, I can’t find any of the cases referenced in the footnotes - anyone know where they can be found please?

Perry v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSSCSC/1998/CIS_863_1994.html&query;=(title:(+perry+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:(+chief+))+AND+(title:(+adjudication+))+AND+(title:(+officer+))
EC v SSWP (SPC) [2010] UKUT 95 (AAC) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2010/95.html
IG v SSWP [2016] UKUT 176 (AAC) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2016/176.html

I still find these new references verging on the impossible to find quite frankly and long for the days of CIS/176/2006…

BAILII; go to search and put the citation number into the appropriate box, click search :-)

JojoMitchell - 27 July 2017 01:50 PM

Thank you.  Rang CPAG for advice and am awaiting the decision from AA.  It might be arguable that as she receives Pension Credit the UK is the competent state.

IG v SSWP [2016] UKUT 176 (AAC) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2016/176.html

Nice one Claire, thanks :-)

Thank you everyone.  Will update you once AA have made their decision…

Just to update, AA have come back with the decision to stop AA as Lithuania is the competent state.  I will argue that PC is a state pension and see how we go…

I cannot see how you can succeed with the state pension argument: the two UT cases that Claire linked to above clearly say it is not.  The IG case in particular seems to be a clone of yours, right down to the claimant’s Lithuanian nationality.  If for some reason your client is told she doesn’t have any entitlement to the equivalent Lithuanian benefit there is some hope for her to argue that the coordination regulation doesn’t apply - that point was made in IG.  But she needs to rule that out first.  The starting position here is that Lithuania is the competent state for sickness benefits.

I do realise this but have been advised to try this argument.  I can at least request provisional payments while a decision is made by Lithuania.