Search rightsnet
Search options







Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Residence issues  →  Thread

EG v SSWP [2018] UKUT 285 (AAC)- National Enterprise Allowance scheme and JSA- effect on right to reside


Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare Rights Advisor, CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 570

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m just posting concerning the decision summarised here:

Whilst it is great that it is positive for the claimant, I have to say I think that Judge Poole has got this completely wrong. The question the Judge should have asked was not what value as evidence as to whether the claimant had GPOW participation on NEA is (and I am surprised at her answer to that as most claimants on the NEA are simply not seeking employment as workers but have switched to starting to set themselves up as self employed…). Rather she should have asked whether participation on the NEA, given it involves making a business plan and setting up a business, actually gives rise to a right of residence as a self employed person.

It seems to me that in most cases it would be pretty clear that someone on the NEA is someone who is taking steps to establish themselves as self employed. As such they have a right of residence as self employed people and the whole GPOW mess does not apply to them at all.

See also R(IS)6/00 and TG v SSWP [2009] UKUT 58 (AAC) - both decisions to which the judge does not appear to have been taken to.

This is important as (1) if self employed can also get HB etc whereas (2) if just a jobseeker that is a pretty rubbish right to reside that does not help other than for JSA for a short period.

Makes me a bit sad to see right to reside issues decided in this way…...

[Edited as I had inadvertently misgendered Judge- sorry]

      [ Edited: 10 Sep 2018 at 10:40 am by Martin Williams ]