Traveler with No Fixed Abode

This isn’t a human rights issue. The DWP are saying that they live at her house and she is saying that they don’t. It’s just a factual dispute. If the tribunal agrees with your client that they do/did not live at the property then she will win her appeal.

You don’t say which benefit the mother is claiming, but across board the relevant condition for the SDP here is that

“...he has no non-dependants aged 18 or over normally residing with him or with whom he normally resides”

(See for example (Sch 2 (13) (2)(a)(ii) IS Regs)

In the IS Regs “non dependant ” is defined in Reg 3(1) (subject to listed exceptions) as

“any person ..... who normally resides with the claimant or with whom the claimant normally resides”

” Normally resides” has far more connotations of permanence than merely ” resides”

This was considered years ago by the former Commissioners   and remains good law.

Have a look at CSIS/100/1993, CIS/14850/1996 and CH/3537/2007

I’ve dealt with similar a few times, albeit with a slightly different community.

I usually show fuel payments in bank statements. If someone is heating up a space other than where they’re alleged to live it’s good evidence they’re living in the warmed place, rather than where they’re alleged to live .  If they’re travellers they’ve either have coal/gas or maybe even diesel of heating oil bills; I doubt many people are managing solely on foraged wood at this time of year (although some do).

A witness statement from mum outlining the situation usually helps, as does making sure c/o is used for all correspondence going forward.