Genuine and sufficient link to the UK for PIP

CPAG P.1576 refers to a genuine and sufficient link to the UK as including:
-whether you have worked in the UK
-whether you have spent a significant part of your life in the UK
-whether you have been present in the UK for a reasonable period

I have looked at Garland in the C of A and BK v SSWP but I can’t really find anything that goes into much detail about any of the above 3 points. Is there any guidance or caselaw anyone is aware of?

My client is a British citizen who previously worked here and has returned after 15 years outside of Europe and been refused PIP on the 104/156 past presence test.

The coordination rules you’re referencing are for the EU - if he’s spent 15 years outside the EU as you note, I can;t see how he can take advantage of these, or am I missing something?

Sorry Paul, a typo. He was outside of the UK but in the EU.

surely, though, “genuine and sufficient link” is totally different to ” past presence”?  if he hasn’t actually been here for the relevant period, his genuine and sufficient links are surely neither here nor there?

but if he’s been in the EU and paying relevant monies to relevant EU state, is that EU state the competent authority for a claim?

As I understand it…

PIP Regs 16, claimant:
(a)is present in Great Britain;
(b)has been present in Great Britain for a period of, or periods amounting in aggregate to, not less than 104 weeks out of the 156 weeks immediately preceding that day;

Qualified by Reg 22 which says:

22.  Regulation 16(b) does not apply in relation to a claim for personal independence payment where on any day –
(a)C is habitually resident in Great Britain;
(b)a relevant EU Regulation(1) applies; and
(c)C can demonstrate a genuine and sufficient link to the United Kingdom social security system.

BK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM [2016] UKUT 0547 (AAC) then ruled that the Regulation should be read to exclude the words “social security system” as it was not compatible with the judgement in the Stewart case.

Is this right?

The ADM at C2130 gives some fairly vague guidance about what a DM has to consider which is condensed into the extract from CPAG above. I was just wondering if there was anything more concrete as to what a genuine and sufficient link is post BK and MM?

I checked the CPAG Benefits for Migrants Handbook and there’s nothing more than what you’ve looked at Billy.

mmmm

having just read the case, you’re right, it doesn’t provide much guidance save for setting out what doesn’t count - BK’s dependence on his mother and both being UK citizens, and MM’s presence.  bearing in mind that MM was german.  BK’s position might have been different had he been in the same position as the young person in Garland (her parents were on UK pensions and had retired to spain; BK’s mother hadn’t been on any UK benefits prior to arrival from ireland).

i should have thought, as a matter of first impression, things like owning property here despite being abroad, maintaining your connections here whilst abroad, having UK bank accounts/loans/such as that….

but really, it’s impossible to know, it seems.

this may also be on point (some discussion around the issues, albeit it’s a JSA case for a brit who went on long term holiday and said to be not resident on his return).  there are some useful pointers on what counts as residence/genuine link and the purpose behind the presence test.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2017/222.pdf

Thanks Claire, that’s interesting. May also be useful for another case too.

In MM and BK the UT has granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

I think you got the names mixed up Claire: the case of the young person in Spain was Stewart, Garland was a pensioner.