UC - failing HRT

Hello,
I’m a little stuck with this one so tapping into the wisdom of those more experienced than me in this area of welfare benefits!

My client is Sri Lankan national with ILR who arrived in the country in 2000. His was granted ILR in 2009.
In the Nov 2017 he left for 6 long months to see his family in Sri Lankas his wife was unwell.
He returned on the 1/6/18.
He applied for UC but failed HRT – he has been given 1 month or more to make a new claim.

my question/s are?:
- What benefits would he be eligible for, if any? I looked into the new-style JSA but he hasn’t paid enough NIC.
Can he apply for legacy JSA in full service UC area if he is not eligible for UC?
- Is he diverted to alternative means tested benefits as a result of failing to qualify for UC?  Like for example income based JSA instead?
Thank you everyone!

Legacy benefits are abolished in a full-service UC area, regardless or whether you qualify for UC (unless 3 children exception applies).

So if your client can’t qualify for contribution-based benefits, then UC is his only option. He will need to challenge HRT decision.

If we accept for the moment that the UC decision is right, then there is no equivalent means tested benefit he can claim. He can’t claim ibJSA - and even if he could, he would be refused for the same reasons.

The remedy for your client is to (a) find work and (b) reclaim, reclaim and reclaim. Eventually, simply through the passage of time, the DWP will need to accept that he has become habitually resident again.

I think though, that he really needs to challenge that decision. On the face of it, it’s a little difficult to accept that your client has lost his habitual residence just through the trip to Sri Lanka. I don’t really buy that a six month trip in the context of 18 years of residence amounts to a change of his centre of interests. Perhaps if your client had given up his home and sold all of his belongings before heading out…

So I would say chuck in an MR and a new claim and go from there.

I agree with Elliot, a decision that he’s lost his habitual residence through a six-month absence, particularly if he’s maintained his accommodation, bank accounts, GP registration etc is bordering on the absurd.

I had a client a while back who went to Africa to study and travel for something like 30 months and we successfully argued at tribunal that he reestablished his habitual residence within a week of returning.

DWP recently decided that British guy who’d lived in UK all his life had lost his HR through 7 weeks of backpacking abroad.  So I’m not confident that DWP decision-making on these cases is getting better!  My LA frequently made HB decisions that were “somewhat at odds” with decisions made on JSA.  Unfortunately the same decision makers have the power over housing costs as well now.

I have a similar case, 3 years abroad, but was told that UC case closed so he must claim esa, BAD MOVE as esa refused due to being a claimin fs UC area, however I found a case where backpacker away for several months was still habitually resident so there is hope, i wonder if he was an asylum seeker whether a question might be asked about him going back to the country he had fled from, just a thought. yes claim again evry month until they pay but appeal in nay event but expect a had ride at tribunal.

Just to underline how perverse the decision in the OP case is, suppose I am a British citizen who emigrated to Sri Lanka 18 years ago. I recently returned to the UK to visit relatives for six months. I thought I might as well bung in a cheeky UC claim. How habitually resident do you think DWP will say I am?