Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Residence issues  →  Thread

HB, R2R and permanent residence on retirement (at age 73) - I(EEA)Reg 5(2)

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1530

Joined: 18 June 2010

Clnt is EU national who came to GB in 2016 at which point had already attained UK pension age. Worked until terminated employment (age 73) to retire. Not eligible for RP (or pension etc. from any other EU country).

HB refused as LA state Regs include a requirement to have been employed for at least 12 months before reaching pension age.

In our view HBGM C4, Appendix B, para 22 is not a correct statement of the legislation and that Reg. 5 simply requires a person to have worked for 12 month prior to terminating employment in order to retire. Age at which terminate employment for the purpose of retirement is irrelevant.

Opinions?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 1841

Joined: 14 July 2014

I agree. Can’t see any authority to the contrary and as you say, the EEA Regs do not include any requirement that the work was done before retirement age.

I don’t think that para 22 of Annex B says anything different. It says:

People who have reached retirement age or retired obtain a right of permanent residence if they
• were working in the UK in the 12 months before retirement, and
• have lived in the UK for the last three years

Reaching retirement age and actually retiring are different things. The person must have been “working in the UK in the 12 months before retirement” but that does not mean they must have been “working in the UK in the 12 months before reaching retirement age” which is why the HB Manual uses the former rather than the latter.

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2318

Joined: 7 January 2016

Yes I agree. There is an official State Pension age, that’s a very different proposition than a “retirement age” which is an absurdity, given how many people either choose to, or have no choice, but to work into their late 60’s and 70’s.

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1530

Joined: 18 June 2010

Elliott / Paul - cheers! beers all round. Elliott - sorry, yes, googly eye X reading Regs against HBGM (not due to beer honest).

Hopefully the LA will revise dec. without need for an appeal (but wouldn’t bet on it with the particular LA!).

Technically isn’t ‘retirement age’ still 70 in the legislation and ‘pension age’ (now 66) was introduced into legislation when retirement (RP) age reduced to 65 way back when - rather than simply amend ‘retirement age’ in the legislation (maybe ‘retirement age’ was removed subsequently) - I’m sure once upon a time the different definitions were still relevant for some obscure reason - this is what 40 yrs in benefits and to much beer does for the brain!

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 2318

Joined: 7 January 2016

That’s what I’m saying Peter, there is, from a legal perspective, no such thing as “retirement age”

Schedule 4 of the Pensions Act 1995 contains the current provisions related to pensionable age” but that is about when you can start receiving your State Pension, not when you have to retire.

If this wasn’t true, then you wouldn’t, for example, be able to defer claiming State Pension. They haven’t got a leg to stand on, the words in the provision relating to retirement must be about when you retired from working, because that’s an event that you decide, not something that the legislation decides for you.

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1530

Joined: 18 June 2010

Hi Paul
I understand - just indulging myself from an historical perspective [SSA 1975 s27(5)] that ‘retirement age’ used to have a statutory definition (70 men, 65 women) but doesn’t any more (presumably abolished by the SSCBA without being really sad and looking it up) - like all things in benefits when they change a rule they change the name / definition just to make it look like a major ‘reform’ - which in that case actually benefited claimants! - not really relevant to the case.