× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Residence issues  →  Thread

UC and EEA national; belts and braces approach to evidence

Jo_Smith
forum member

Citizens Advice Hillingdon

Send message

Total Posts: 325

Joined: 3 October 2018

Client, who currently gets IS and .CA, arrived in UK 30 years ago. She has an ILR from 1990 and a 20 years worth of P60s, both of which she brought to her HRT appointment at the JC+
However she was asked to return with evidence of studies (which she has completed 10 years ago) plus evidence of family members claimining benefits “since arriving” despite all her family members being British citizens.  She was asked for contract of employment,  despite that fact that I she is not in paid employment due to caring responsibilities.

So far she’s had 2 appointments with JC+ and will need to return for a 3rd one. This of course means that she cannot ask for advance payment because her claim has not been verified yet.

The list of evidence she must return with was not made by the JC+ adviser but generated by the system.

Is the system panicking about EEA nationals?

YES.

 

 

Benny Fitzpatrick
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer, Southway Housing Trust, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 627

Joined: 2 June 2015

Similar experience with an Italian National, who has found it necessary to claim UC due to redundancy. He has been in the UK since 1986 (when he was 18 years old) and has a teenage son. He has been asked to provide a full record of P60s since his “arrival”, names and addresses of all employers (even those no longer in business), and to account for any periods between jobs.

Of course, because it was impossible for him to provide all the evidence requested, negative HRT Decision states he does not qualify for “permanent right to reside” as he has not “according to available evidence”, worked continuously for 5 years in UK, and his level of wages is held to be not “genuine and effective”.

Second part of decision: He does not have right to reside as cannot be classed as a workseeker because he is working. (Started a new p-t job a week into UC claim), but DM does not consider whether he can now be classed as a “worker”, and therefore has Right to Reside.

MR submitted. Original decision “rubber-stamped”.

We are going to appeal.

It seems that the levels of evidence claimants are expected to produce are unrealistic, and deliberately set claimants up to fail.  Surely the Secretary of State has the legal power to obtain the evidence of employment via HMRC, and it would be far more reasonable in these cases if the SofS were to exercise their power?

Jo_Smith
forum member

Citizens Advice Hillingdon

Send message

Total Posts: 325

Joined: 3 October 2018

My client was asked to provide exact date of arrival. As this was nearly 30 years ago and she has renewed her passport twice since then, she could remember the month, but not the day. JC adviser could not proceed with the questionnaire without the exact date, and so another date was used, which was not a true date….
This is for someone who worked for 2 decades in full time job and had evidence to prove it.

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Jo_Smith - 08 February 2019 11:11 AM

My client was asked to provide exact date of arrival. As this was nearly 30 years ago and she has renewed her passport twice since then, she could remember the month, but not the day. JC adviser could not proceed with the questionnaire without the exact date, and so another date was used, which was not a true date….
This is for someone who worked for 2 decades in full time job and had evidence to prove it.

jobsworthiness taken to extremes…..cannot believe that the system requires such detail in such circs… ridiculous.

letter to MP?

ikbikb
forum member

LSD WB supervisor - Bury District CAB, Lancashire

Send message

Total Posts: 146

Joined: 17 June 2010

his level of wages is held to be not “genuine and effective”. sop presumably is not a worker as the work by definition is marginal and ancillary according to DM

He does not have right to reside as cannot be classed as a workseeker because he is working.

Err….... heads you lose tail I win scenario…... Did you lodge a complaint pointing out how daft this makes the DWP look?

MKM35
forum member

ASG PBS UC Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 111

Joined: 14 March 2018

Can I piggy back on this?

Client has PERMANENT residency document - tiny snip below- she’s not currently working because she had a baby few months ago.

Classed as EEA Jobseeker. Hasn’t had any income for ~3 months, also has a 2 year old.

They seem to think jobseeker = someone who does not have a job. Not Jobseeker the immigration status. It’s beyond rationality

 

Image Attachments

PRsnip.PNG

Click thumbnail to see full-size image