ZAMBRANO- important right to reside case

news item about pryce on deighton pierce glynn website says -

‘The judgment benefits all persons who meet the Zambrano criteria who applied for homelessness assistance and/or an allocation of social housing prior to 8 November 2012. It also helps Zambrano beneficiaries establish eligibility for benefits and tax credits, as well as to secure healthcare treatment in hospitals. In addition, Zambrano beneficiaries should not be excluded from social services support, for example under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989, on immigration grounds because they are not unlawfully present in the UK. This case is important for confirming the principle that an EU right of residence confers substantive and not merely procedural benefits. Zambrano beneficiaries do not have to apply for or be granted a derivative residence card before being granted social assistance.

New regulations came into force on 8 November 2012 that attempt to limit access to housing and benefits for persons applying on or after that date. Deighton Pierce Glynn are happy to advise on eligibility under both the new and old provisions.’

here’s a link -

http://www.deightonpierceglynn.co.uk/news/news_1.htm#123

and from garden court chambers ...

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/news_detail.cfm?iNewsID=788

Hi,

I haven’t seen any news item about this case on Rightsnet news and I was wondering whether this is because it only helps people retrospectively i.e. prior to 8 Nov 2012.  Does this mean that the judgement only establishes that the appellant did have a right to housing assistance prior to that date but now they don’t due to the new regs and so are back to square one?  So would it be fair to say that this decision will have no impact on decisions made since the new regs came into effect on 8/11 and but that it will be helpful in a challenge to the lawfulness of the new regulations because it “is important for confirming the principle that an EU right of residence confers substantive and not merely procedural benefits”?

Also, Martin - I just wanted to check something with you about WTC.  Would I be right in thinking that a single parent with a Zambrano right to reside can claim WTC if working 16 hours (as opposed to having to work 30 hours) because they still count as being responsible for a child even though they are not eligible for CTC or CB for them under the new regs?

Thanks,

Krista

hi krista - just in terms of rightsnet coverage - no story because judgment not yet published…

cheers ros

Hi Ros,

Ah I see, thanks.

Krista

Krista - 22 November 2012 03:03 PM

Hi,

I haven’t seen any news item about this case on Rightsnet news and I was wondering whether this is because it only helps people retrospectively i.e. prior to 8 Nov 2012.  Does this mean that the judgement only establishes that the appellant did have a right to housing assistance prior to that date but now they don’t due to the new regs and so are back to square one?  So would it be fair to say that this decision will have no impact on decisions made since the new regs came into effect on 8/11 and but that it will be helpful in a challenge to the lawfulness of the new regulations because it “is important for confirming the principle that an EU right of residence confers substantive and not merely procedural benefits”?

Also, Martin - I just wanted to check something with you about WTC.  Would I be right in thinking that a single parent with a Zambrano right to reside can claim WTC if working 16 hours (as opposed to having to work 30 hours) because they still count as being responsible for a child even though they are not eligible for CTC or CB for them under the new regs?

Thanks,

Krista

Hi Krista:

I agree with what you say about WTC- the new regs don’t stop them counting as responsible for a child and so they still within the 16 hour work only group.

I think the regulations that apply to CB and CTC are unlawful anyway though- if anyone has a client who is refused benefit on this basis then get them to appeal…..

Thanks very much Martin.

Krista