Just to double check; does caring endanger HRT status?

I have this gem of MRN which my client received today: “You have stated that you are dependant on your father as outlined in your reconsideration. You have also stated that you are your father full time carer, due to his disability. This means that you are unable derive a right from your father as you stated that you are your father’s full time carer.”

This is for my non-EEA national who arrived in September 2019 to care for her disabled father, EEA national, who has PRtR. She is over 21 and dependent on her father for all material support.

But am I going doolaly? This business with being a carer and this stopping my client from relying on his R2R- am I missing something?

I think its just that DWP don’t believe in the concept of interdependence - see also “you can’t possibly be disabled enough for PIP because you are getting carers”.

I don’t see that there is any conceptual reason why someone couldn’t be a “dependent” of another person whilst also providing care for that person. It will all depend on the individual facts of course.

Throw CIS/2100/2007 at them which states, among other things:

“Although support must be ‘material’ it need not necessarily be financial. It could, for example, take the form of the provision of housing, clothing and food. I express no view, as it does not arise in this case, on Ms Mountfield’s suggestion that emotional dependence might be sufficient in some circumstances.” (para29)

“Conclusion on the case law of the European Court of Justice
In summary, the case law is authority for these propositions:
• A person is only dependent who actually receives support from another.
• There need be no right to that support and it is irrelevant that there are alternative sources of support available.
• That support must be material, although not necessarily financial, and must provide for, or contribute towards, the basic necessities of life.” (para 44)

http://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=2426

Thanks nevip, already did this. And supported with solid evidence.  And you know what? It was totally ababsolutely entirely ignored,
.
Never ever have I seen MRN of such awful quality. Its not simply that its short and does not address the issue in question but the grammar,  the syntax, the logical flow! They are really so stretched- I understand,  but instead of exercising any discretion for the benefit of claimant in crisis, they compound the misery.

Same old, same old, I guess

Well, it’s hardly going to survive an appeal based on that reasoning is it?  But, I guess that’s not really the point: awful decision making, unnecessary delay, hardship for the claimant, etc.  To try to expedite matters you could send a copy of the appeal with a fully reasoned argument to the DWP solicitors’ office.